life philosophy essay

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper

Research Paper

• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

My Philosophy of Life, Essay Example

Pages: 6

Words: 1566

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

In all honesty, the subject here causes me some problems, at least at first. In simple terms, I am not at all sure that I want any type of philosophy of life. In my mind this would somehow translate to a kind of limitation, or an “outlook” that might prevent me from taking in new experience and actually learning more about what life truly means. I have known people who strongly believe in a positive viewpoint, for instance. Their life philosophies are based on seeking the good in the world around them, and I am certainly not about to argue with such beliefs. At the same time, I feel that such a way of thinking creates borders. It is a philosophy as a focus, and I do not believe that life may be so confined, or neatly fit into any such approach. In all fairness, I have the same opinion regarding those who practice philosophies of extreme caution, or who believe that life is an arena in which they are entitled to take as much as possible. Put another way, whenever I have actually heard or read of a life philosophy, my first thought is invariably that life may not nicely accommodate it. Life, as I see it, has ideas all its own and is not concerned with how anyone chooses to view it.

I am aware that, even in saying this, I am in a sense offering a philosophy anyway. I imagine that is my own dilemma, and one I should at least try to explore. I think back on my life thus far, then, and am struck by one consistent factor: it has never failed to surprise me, in ways both good and bad. Even when experience has been painful, I have sometimes been aware that I do not respond to it in a pained way. Similarly, I have gone through whole periods of my life when everything was going well, yet I have felt a sense of dissatisfaction. I know that my reactions in all ways are powerfully influenced by the world around me. I have been disappointed in not feeling happy, I know, because the circumstances were supposed to make me feel that way, and everyone around me encouraged this as natural. Still, those feelings of happiness have sometimes eluded me, just as I have been strangely empowered or happy when things have gone wrong. How can I even consider a “philosophy,” then, when I cannot even follow the course of thinking and feeling in place for the rest of the world? No matter how I move through my life, it always seems that I am not in a place where a common perception about living matches how I truly think and feel, so I tend to veer from any ideology. It is not that I disagree with them; it is that, for me, they do not fit.

This then brings me to another question: what is it that I think life is? If I can better understand that, I may be on my way to realizing that there is a philosophy for me. After all, there can be no real and consistent view of a thing without an idea of the thing itself. Unfortunately, I “hit a wall” here as well. Great minds have struggled to define life since humanity began, and each seems to have ideas as valid as those different from them. For some, it is meaningless, a kind of dream in which we act our parts to no real purpose. For others, life is a boundless opportunity to grow spiritually and expand the mind and heart to unlimited potentials. For most people, I think, life occupies more of a middle ground; it can be fantastic and enabling, just as it can be empty when no purpose is in sight. In other words, it seems that there is no incorrect view or philosophy of life because it may be, simply, anything and everything at all. Given this thinking, I am not encouraged. I am, in fact, more inclined to see any effort at capturing a philosophy an exercise in futility.

When I then allow myself to take this thinking further, however, it seems that I may be nearing the thing I see as pointless or impossible. That is, since I view life as far too unpredictable to be subject to a single approach or philosophy, I then begin to understand my own role in the entire process. I think of what I earlier said, in regard to mt feelings not following usual patterns and my tendency to react to “life” in unexpected ways. It occurs to me that I am then missing a crucial element in this scenario: myself. I think: everyone, great mind or otherwise, who has wondered about life has done so in the same way, in that the views and feelings must be created by their own life itself. We can seek to see beyond our own experience, but I must wonder at how realistic that ambition is. We are all tied to who and what we are, whether that being is expansive or not; in all cases, the individual can only define life through what the individual has experienced and is capable of perceiving from the experience. Life is the self, in a very real sense. We are not channels out outside elements in some vast, inexplicable equation; we are the equation because life is literally what we make it. This happens through actual “living” and action, and it happens equally through our perceptions.

I then begin to feel that I am nearing a truth. I am life, and life is not some external essence I must consider. At the same time, everyone and everything around me is life as well, just as validly as I am. Here, then, is where I can shape a philosophy. It is not a structure, or even a foundation. Rather, it is more an impression accepted. It is that life is a thing completely bound to myself, and in “partnership” with me. It is, most important of all, never fixed. It cannot be, because every moment changes who I am in some way, and because of this intense and purely exponential relationship with the life around me. Life will always be the moment or direction currently affecting or guiding me, and in every sense of living. When my spirit is at its strongest, life is a generous and fine thing because that is what I am giving to it, and life affirms this reality by taking what I can give. When I am small and involved with minor issues or feelings, life shrinks to a cell because I am unable then to see beyond a cell. I referred to what I know is a cliché, in that life is what we make it. This is, however, profoundly true in a literal sense. As I think this is my philosophy, I restate it as: life is what I create, which in turn reflects and creates me.

While I am content with this definition, I am as well unwilling to leave it as so lacking in structure. More exactly, while I firmly believe in the self/life reciprocity I have described, and while I believe this must be a fluid state of being, I nonetheless comprehend that even this shifting relationship places responsibilities on me. On one level, and no matter how “life and I” go on, I believe in good and evil. I believe these are actual forces or energies in the world, and I believe that my mind and my heart must always be directed to knowing and promoting good when I can. This is not necessarily virtuous on my part; I see it more as an acceptance of a reality as basic as the air we breathe. The complex process of life is endlessly open to possibilities generated by my involvement with it, but there remains in the universe, at least in my perception, these polar elements. True meaning is as powerful a thing as good, and meaning may only come when good is pursued, and I believe this because I believe that evil is emptiness. Whatever life becomes for me, then, there is a primal direction to know.

Lastly, there is as well an obligation linked to good, which is that of being expansive. I cannot expect much of life if I do not open myself to the possibilities in place when my openness meets the limitless offerings of what is outside of myself. This is that partnership in place, and when I am doing my part in giving my utmost to it. Strangely, this is not a giving related to effort; rather, it is more a willingness to accept. When I consider all of this, in fact, I find that my philosophy is more complex than I had thought. It insists on my exponential relationship with living as creating life, yet it also demands real awareness. It is open to the new, but it is observant of basic principles. It is what is known through my eyes, but it relies on my expanding my sight to make the most of it. More than anything, my philosophy of life is one that brings life right to me side, always. It holds to the conviction that, no matter how we make it happen, life is what the world around me and I shape every moment.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Research Paper Example

The Setting in the Fall of the House of Usher, Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Life Philosophy 101 – An Introduction

Personal life philosophies are not a common subject and quality information on them can be difficult to find. They can tend to be grouped with other more prescriptive philosophies or reduced to personal slogans like bumper stickers or t-shirts.

Personal Life Philosophies are unique in that there are as many of them as there are individuals. Just as no two people are alike, no two life philosophies are the same. We each have our own basis for understanding ourselves, our lives and the world and our own aspirations for how we seek them to be.

This introduction touches on the essential knowledge that everyone should have to understand personal life philosophies, why they are essential life tools and how they can enrich your life.

Introduction to Life Philosophy Resources

These key concepts establish a common foundation of knowledge.  This foundation will be helpful as you develop and live your personal life philosophy.

Start here if you are unfamiliar with life philosophy or want a refresher. Expand each of the sections if you would like more in depth information.

Life philosophy can be a tricky subject to embrace. There are common misconceptions that can bias your understanding and lead you to avoid the whole topic.  

Understanding these misconceptions can stop them from preventing knowing and embracing your unique personal philosophy.

Just as we all have our own life philosophy; we all have our own way of learning.

If you prefer, choose the topics you want to cover in the order that works best for you.

Key Concepts about Personal Philosophies

• What is a personal philosophy?

A personal life philosophy is your unique understanding of and perspective on the world and life including how you think life should be lived and the world should be.

Why does this matter? Your personal philosophy is a way to crystalize and make real your understanding of the world and life to help you make sense of it, know what is essential, sharpen your vision and bring clarity to a complex world.

The concept of a personal philosophy is something that is unique and something that is not generally well known or widespread, at least personal philosophies that are well developed and that can bring real value to one’s life. One can wonder why this is so, especially considering the importance of one’s personal philosophy . 

In general, personal philosophies include things like your most essential truths and insights about, and highest aspirations, for life and the world. They bring value to your life both through the process of developing them and through helping make more definite thoughts and feelings that can be abstract and difficult to readily access and use in your life.

A personal philosophy encapsulates what is most essential, of great consequence, vital, enlightening and imperative. It is based upon what captures your imagination, demands your attention, comes naturally to you, incites you to action, inspires you, infuriates you, drives you or frees you to the greatest degree.

Personal philosophies are typically stated in a written form such as a set of principles or tenets and sometimes are written in an essay format, though they can take any from that you find useful.

Note: There are a series of related terms used for referring to personal philosophies including personal philosophy on life, living philosophy.  Just about every conceivable combination and variation of the words philosophy, life and personal that are used to refer to personal philosophies.  Here, the terms personal philosophy, personal life philosophy and life philosophy are used interchangeably.

• What is life philosophy?

Life philosophy is the development and application of your personal philosophy to your life.  Life philosophy includes two primary components: your personal philosophy and the ongoing act of making it real through developing and living it.

Why does this matter? Personal philosophies that cannot be or are not used in one’s life, may be interesting to contemplate and discuss over an adult beverage, but they cannot enrich your life unless you actually use them in it.

Beyond the potentially transformational experience of developing a personal philosophy, most of its value is realized through living it. A personal philosophy that is only vague concepts or even one is well formed but unused is of little value. Your personal philosophies can be of great value, but only if it is clear to you and made real in your life. Living your personal philosophy is how you realize the value of it for yourself and the world. There are a wealth of practical and enriching ways that your personal philosophy can be used in your life .

• Why should I put effort into developing my personal philosophy?

Although each of us naturally has the basis for our personal philosophy, most of us do not understand our basis in ways that help us or in ways that we can make use of. Developing your personal philosophy clarifies it for you and helps you gain active knowledge of it.

Why does this matter?   The experience of developing your personal philosophy includes connecting with what is essential to you in the world, which is a rewarding and enriching experience itself. Most importantly developing and actively knowing your personal philosophy enables you to use it in your life and realize the value it can bring .

When following a good approach for developing yours, you start to realize the value early in the process. Because of the nature of personal philosophies, you necessarily need to consider your perspective on the world and to understand your thoughts and feelings about it.  Most of us do not take the time or invest the effort into actively working to understand our perspective on the world and ourselves. Developing your personal philosophy gives you an opportunity to indulge in doing so in a way that gets around much of the challenge of being too actively introspective, or touchy-feely. With the right approach, getting in touch with your perspective on the world and yourself is rewarding, freeing and simply enjoyable. You may even find it an experience that is affirmational or transformational.

Beyond the enriching personal experience, developing your personal philosophy will clarify your unique understanding of the world and life for you and make it something that you actively know. A personal philosophy that is just thoughts and feelings floating around in your mind has about as much value as a personal desire to become Yoda. It may be an interesting thought, but it probably won’t go much further than that. Your personal philosophy needs to be clear to you and something that you actively know. Clarity is critical so that when you need to use it in your life you don’t have to sort through it to figure out how it applies. Actively knowing your personal philosophy allows you to use it in your life. Not being able to clearly remember your personal philosophy makes it difficult to use in the moment. If you have to refer back to it in some written form it probably doesn’t have the clarity needed to be a real and present part of your life. Part of developing your personal philosophy is crafting it to be clear so that you can and actively know and use it in your life in large and small ways.

The importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life.

Your personal philosophy begins to bring value to your life through the experience of developing it and continues to do so for the rest of your life. It will help you make sense of the world, understand what is meaningful to you, clarify your insights, motivate and inspire you, and help you find and maintain your direction.

What does this mean to me?  Your personal philosophy is a real-world life tool. Without it you are in many ways unequipped for life in an increasingly complex and difficult world for you as an individual.

The process of developing your personal philosophy necessarily requires being in touch with the world and yourself.  The experience of doing so in a concerted, intentional way helps you crystalize what is meaningful in the world to you.  This is one part of the reason why you should put the effort into developing your personal philosophy .

Beyond the experience of developing your personal philosophy, the real importance of a personal philosophy is that it equips you for life in a complex world in ways that can be difficult to do otherwise. Knowing and understanding your essential truths about, and aspirations for, life and the world as well as what you value and what is meaningful to you helps you with some of the most challenging aspects of life. Many of the traditional sources that people have relied upon for these answers are outdated and not relevant in today’s world. Without a personal philosophy you can be left searching for answers when challenges in life arise. Your personal philosophy helps you make sense of life and the challenges you encounter. It also helps you identify things you do that are out of sync with what you place value in and be a source of strength for changing them. It will help you fend off the constant barrage from others trying to make you do and think what they want you to. It provides a clear source of personal direction that can help with difficult or important decisions that you need to make in life. It can help you better understand your unique insights about life and the world and make the most of them. It can even inspire you to do something that is wildly aspirational that you would likely not do without the clarity, vision and meaning that your personal philosophy makes real for you. Knowing and living your personal philosophy will help you be more effective in the world and help you to contribute to realizing the things that you aspire for life and the world to be.What

Why aren't personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?

The primary purpose of education in most parts of the world is to produce individuals that are effective members of society and productive workers. Secondarily the concept of personal philosophies and the individual or “self” are relatively new (see the brief history of personal philosophies ).

Why should I care about this? A personal philosophy is something that is not needed to be a productive worker or effective member of society. It is needed if you are going to live an engaged, meaningful life that aligns with who you are and what you seek for your life and the world to be.

The value of education cannot be overstated. Knowledge is empowering. Self-knowledge, like that used in one’s personal philosophy, is an especially powerful form of knowledge. Unfortunately, self-knowledge is something that most of us must learn on our own without significant guidance or education about it. 

An important part of developing a personal philosophy is quality self-knowledge. While some education systems do seek to develop the individual, but even they do not overtly educate individuals on developing self-knowledge. The concept of personal philosophies, the self and self-knowledge are relatively new. Most education systems are based upon century old theory and have not kept up with these concepts or integrated them into their method and curriculum. Imagine if our education systems sought to help people become self-aware, develop self-knowledge and become more enlightened about life and the world, instead of just seeking to produce productive contributing members of society. 

A personal philosophy is something that can help you get beyond the narrow vision and relatively low expectations that many educational systems have for you. It can help you become more self-aware, more knowledgeable and more enlightened about life and the world.

What can be included in your personal philosophy?

Anything that you think or feel is essential to your understanding of and perspective on life and the world. 

Why is the point?   There are some things that can be helpful to include to make your unique personal philosophy more valuable in your life, but in the end, it is up to you. 

A personal philosophy is the encapsulation of one’s most essential truths about, and aspirations for, the world, life and one’s self. That said, you can choose what to include in yours. To be able to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it is helpful if one includes things that you uniquely understand about life and the world, or your truths, and how you would like to see the world be, or your aspirations. The two together create a view of what you know about the world that is most significant to you, how you think life and the world should be and your desires for them. Your personal philosophy can include anything you find essential such as what you place value in and find especially meaningful. If there are other aspects of your understanding of yourself, life or the world that you think are substantive, you should include them.

One of the key attributes of your personal philosophy is that it draws upon your unique knowledge of the world and yourself. The types of knowledge that can be used in your life philosophy are those encompassed by knowledge in a broad sense. Often the concept of knowledge is constrained to specific types of knowledge such as that which is taught through formal education or that which can be attained through science and reason. While there are no hard rules about personal philosophies, constraining yourself to narrow definitions of knowledge is limiting. Including what you know beyond your capacity for reason and the realm of scientific proof, such that which you know through emotion and intuition, helps to create a personal philosophy that captures the nature of being human. Einstein’s essay in Living Philosophies is a great example of how this is true. If you are going to apply your personal philosophy to your life, it should be substantive and not oversimplify the nature of life to the point of being of little value in it. It also should not be limited to someone else’s definition of what a life philosophy should entail, or what it should be based upon.  Too, it should not be limited to systems thought and belief that have been formalized and categorized. In many ways, personal philosophy allows you to move beyond these prescribed ways of understanding and create a perspective that is rich in meaning to you.

Including those things that are the most significant to you, especially what sets you apart from others, is one approach. For instance, we all place high value on our families, health and livelihood. These are universal and stating them as a personal philosophy, while perfectly valid, may not be very insightful about your personal truths or aspirations for life and the world. In a similar way, a personal philosophy is not necessarily about defining universal truths or answering life’s big questions such as the purpose or meaning of life. These can be included if your knowledge of them is especially significant to you. Your personal philosophy is about understanding and expressing the things that stand out to you above all others.

• What do I need to know to develop my personal philosophy?

Having a reasonably broad view of life and the world is helpful, as is being able to connect with and understanding your perspective on it. An understanding of personal philosophies is also helpful.

Why does this matter to me?   While having a broad view of life and the world is important, you can never know, feel or experience everything. When you decide to develop your personal philosophy, it is important to use your perspective on the world to the greatest extent possible. Too, your personal philosophy will likely evolve as you and the world change.

Your personal philosophy necessarily draws upon your understanding of life and the world. If you have limited experience with life and the world, it can be helpful to work to expand your perspective. Even if you have an expansive perspective on the world, being in touch with that perspective is important. You may find it helpful to spend some time reconnecting with your perspective on the world as you craft your personal philosophy. Too, you continue to learn and change throughout your life and the world continues to change at a rapid pace. An effective approach for crafting your personal philosophy should help you connect with what is essential in the world to and to understand why throughout your life.

Having a good connection with yourself is also helpful. This connection allows you to understand your perspective on the world including your thoughts and feelings about it. You may find it necessary to work to create this connection, or to reconnect with yourself if you have lost touch. One of the challenges with creating and maintaining it is the constant barrage we are under from others wanting us to think and do what they want us to. A good connection with yourself helps cut through this barrage. An effective approach for developing your personal philosophy will also help.

Like with most things that you undertake, a good understanding of what you are taking on and what is involved with accomplishing it is advisable. Having an understanding of personal philosophies and what is involved with developing one can help you successfully craft yours so that it is valuable in your life.

• Where did the concept of personal philosophies come from?

While the roots of personal philosophies, individual’s interpretations on what is important in the world, can be seen even in the earliest artwork and myths, personal philosophies per se arrived on the scene much more recently.  They appear to have come into general use within the last century or so.

Like most forms of modern thinking, the roots of personal philosophies appear to have evolved along with human thought. Prehistoric evidence for personal views on the world and what is most significant in it are likely captured in the earliest myths and paintings. These early forms of expression undoubtedly included some personal interpretation of the world for practical use. Yet, considering them to be statements of personal philosophy is a stretch at best. The first formal thinking related to personal philosophies dates back to the time of the early thinkers on human condition and the nature of the world that we live in. Religious beliefs and religions evolved from individuals’ personal understanding of the world. Confucius’s writings can be considered a good example of how this happened. Undoubtedly, many of those who have focused their life on the pursuit of philosophy necessarily include what would constitute their own philosophy on life in their work including the first recognized philosophers in the 600-500 BC period. One perspective on philosophy itself is that it can be considered the pursuit of making sense of life and the world. Beyond those who pursued philosophy per se, many great thinkers and people who have put their imprint upon the course of history have recorded their philosophical perspective behind their thinking and actions. Abraham Lincoln is a familiar, notable example, and there are many more. Yet none of these can be considered a personal philosophy per se.

Personal philosophies in the context used here, are prevalent in modern times. In 1931 a volume of Living Philosophies was published by Simon & Schuster and includes short essays about their philosophy on life from notable figures including Albert Einstein. These insightful essays capture their perspective on the world including their beliefs and ideals. Two subsequent volumes were published with essays from other notables, I Believe in 1942 and Living Philosophies in 1990. All of which are worth reading.  These essays seem to come the closest to the concept of personal philosophy as used here. Interestingly the concept of individual identity and the self appears to have come into prominence on a similar timeline, within the last century.

The rapid escalation of the challenges facing humanity in general, the shift away from traditional sources and authorities for answers to life’s important questions, the increasingly difficult global environmental and political situation and the escalating assault on our individuality through the ever-present screens we view all seem to be reasons why personal philosophies are becoming more prominent. In many ways, personal philosophies have become a vital form of empowerment for the individual actualizing their individuality.

Using your personal philosophy in your life.

There are virtually limitless ways that you can use your personal philosophy in your life.  How you do so will vary based upon where you are in life and what is happening in yours.

Your personal philosophy can be made part of your life in ways large and small. In looking at the importance (value) of your personal philosophy in life , we touched upon many of the ways your personal philosophy brings value to your life including as a source of meaning, a source of guidance for important decisions, a source of strength, a source of vision and insight, even a source of inspiration.

Through actively knowing your personal philosophy you can use it in your daily life as you make decisions and to help guide your actions to be in line with how you seek to be. It can be easy to take the path of least resistance or to succumb, even momentarily, to the toxic messaging constantly targeting you. Actively knowing your personal philosophy helps you be more intentional and fend off this and other forces working against you.

Making your personal philosophy a part of your daily life helps keep what you find essential, place value in, and draw meaning from present in your life. It also provides a reassuring sense of understanding and direction through your essential truths and aspirations.

Your life philosophy can help you better understand yourself and your perspective on just about everything and under any circumstances. Having a well-developed life philosophy also allows you to share and discuss it with others, if you choose to.  It can help them understand you and your actions.  Sharing your life philosophy or some part of it can be helpful in many situations such as when you have to explain choices that you make which are different from others or that don’t align with their expectations of you.

Your life philosophy can help you achieve a greater sense of meaning and fulfillment. Some think that it is only possible to achieve higher levels of meaning and happiness through the understanding and awareness that knowing and living a personal philosophy can provide.

Common Misconceptions About Personal Philosophies

• I don’t have or need a personal philosophy.

Short Answer : Everyone has some form of a personal philosophy. Most just have not developed it into something they actively know or use in their lives.

Each individuals’ personal philosophy, including yours, is their unique understanding of the world that is developed into a form that can be actively known and used in their life. When you consider the scope of the human experience, including what we can know and feel and how we can know and feel it, and the diversity of individuals, we all truly have our unique understanding of the world.

There is strength in diversity.  You as an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual build upon what it means to be human and for us to collectively be humanity. Understanding your unique knowledge and wisdom about life and the world will help you become an empowered, self-actualized and enlightened individual.

The kinds of changes that are confronting individuals and humanity require something more than for all of us to live and think the same way, or even subscribe to a defined set of philosophic and religious systems. The scales are tipped toward you becoming more like everyone else. The intentional attempt to control your thoughts and actions through messaging and artificial intelligence is invading all aspects of your life. It is an attempt to make you think and behave in ways that others seek for you to. Actively knowing your understanding of the world and your aspirations for it is not only essential for surviving in an increasingly complex and difficult world, it is key to advancing us as humanity and overcoming the crises that confront us now and in the future.

• Personal philosophies are only for big thinkers.

Short Answer : Each of us has a unique understanding of the world and the ability to define our own personal philosophy. Be wary of anyone or any entity that tries to make you think otherwise. Question their motives. 

Society puts undue importance on the personal philosophies of famous people and preserves their perspective through time disproportionally. Historically, this may have largely been a product of our ability to record and publish the thoughts of any one person. It may be no coincidence that as our ability to record our individual thinking and share it broadly the importance of the big thinkers’ thoughts is diminishing.

For some reason, we have a tendency to treat some and their thoughts effectively as idols. We often turn to those that we view as authorities for answers to life’s important questions when the reality is that they are just people and their answers are merely that, theirs. They are not better than the answers that we each have, yet we often place more value in them than our own. 

In the end, you determine your personal philosophy. If you decide to adopt a philosophy or components of a philosophy that is defined by someone else, that is your choice. The important thing is that you have explored the world enough to know what makes sense to you and works for you. Too, nothing in life is cast in stone. The world changes and we all grow and learn. As you do, your personal philosophy should as well.

But it is not only the famous who leave their marks.  Every single one of us has, I believe, a significant part to play in the scheme of things.  Some contributors that go unrecognized may nevertheless be of the utmost importance. 

– Jane Goodall in her personal philosophy within Living Philosophies 1990.

• A personal philosophy is a one sentence maxim.

Short Answer : You’re not a car and your personal philosophy shouldn’t be a bumper sticker.

Everyone likes a concise statement that captures the essence of a common experience in life. It’s also good to have simple rules in life to remind us of basic things we know. They have practical value in specific situations. That said, simple rules of life, even a collection of really good ones do not amount to a personal philosophy. 

An effective personal philosophy encompasses the scope of your unique perspective on life and the world. To be effective it needs to be able to help you make sense of a complex and dynamic world. It needs to be able to help you derive meaning from your life, understand what you value and what you seek for life and the world to be. If you truly can express your personal philosophy in one sentence, beyond likely being an amazing sentence, it would no longer be a maxim that is applicable only in specific situations. It would be a broad, robust expression of your unique perspective on the world and life including your truths about them and how you think they should be.

Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have practical value.

Short Answer : This misconception is completely understandable. Philosophy is generally something that can be challenging to convert to real world value. Personal philosophies are different as they are practical real-life tools.

Unfortunately, there is not a good substitute for the word “philosophy” in the English language that fully captures its meaning in the sense of being “a set of basic concepts and beliefs that are of value as guidance in practical ways.” When we hear or read the world philosophy, we most often think of one of the other meanings primarily “systems of thought” as in skepticism, pragmatism or existentialism and the famous men (typically) that professed their virtues and argued for their specific flavor as the one best perspective on the world and life. In many ways, personal philosophies are the antithesis of these systems of thought. Personal philosophies are individual perspectives meant to have meaning and value for one individual rather than general principles that apply to all. Applied practical value in life is one of the defining characteristics of personal life philosophies. If a personal philosophy is not of practical value in life, it is not much of a personal philosophy at all.

I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to develop it.

Short Answer : If you have and know your personal philosophy, you should be able to state it now in a clear and concise way that you can apply in your life. If not, crafting it into a clear form to you and that you actively know will help you realize real-world value from it.

• I’m just one normal person, my personal philosophy is of no value to the world.

Short Answer : Humanity is a collective of unique individuals. Who we are, what we know, what we will become and what defines us our humanity is determined by the sum total of each of us. Your individuality, including your unique understanding of and perspective on life and the world, has real implications for humanity collectively.

It can be easy to sell oneself short considering the hype and focus given to people with power, money and fame. This is exactly what you are doing if you truly think that your personal philosophy is not of consequence to the world.

At the very least, understanding your unique perspective on the world and life, will hedge off the homogeneity we are being driven toward by the systems and institutions that we have created. Systems and institutions controlled by and for the benefit of those with power, money and fame. Systems, institutions and people that want you to think and act in ways that benefit them. Dismissing the value of your personal philosophy and not developing yours is playing their game. Their game of control lets them have power over you and makes you even more susceptible to thinking and acting like they want you to as long as you are passive to it.

Your personal philosophy will lead you to a better understanding of the world. That understanding will prompt you to take some action to make it better, at least within your immediate world. Developing and knowing your personal philosophy may even lead you to do something that you never thought you would. That action may have implications beyond what you expect, and makes a substantial difference in the lives of others and the course of the world.

Be better equipped to develop and live your personal philosophy.

On Terms of Your Own:

The Pursuit of Being and Fulfillment in a Challenging World.

Navigate 101 by Topic

Key Concepts :

• The importance (value) of a personal philosophy.
• Why aren’t personal philosophies taught on a wider basis?
• What can be included in a personal philosophy?
• Using my personal philosophy in my life .

Common Misconceptions :

• Like philosophy in general, personal philosophies are esoteric and don’t have any practical value.
• I already know my personal philosophy. I don’t need to formalize it.

We’re in Yellow Springs, Ohio

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Meaning in Life

Iddo Landau is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Haifa, Israel. His publications include ‘The Meaning of Life sub specie aeternitatis ’ ( Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 2011) and Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World (Oxford University Press, 2017).

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This volume presents thirty-two essays on a wide array of topics in modern philosophical meaning in life research. The essays are organized into six parts. Part I, Understanding Meaning in Life, focuses on various ways of conceptualizing meaning in life. Among other issues, it discusses whether meaning in life should be understood objectively or subjectively, the relation between importance and meaningfulness, and whether meaningful lives should be understood narratively. Part II, Meaning in Life, Science, and Metaphysics, presents opposing views on whether neuroscience sheds light on life’s meaning, inquires whether hard determinists must see life as meaningless, and explores the relation between time, personal identity, and meaning. Part III, Meaning in Life and Religion, examines the relation between meaningfulness, mysticism, and transcendence, and considers life’s meaning from both atheist and theist perspectives. Part IV, Ethics and Meaning in Life, examines (among other issues) whether meaningful lives must be moral, how important forgiveness is for meaning, the relation between life’s meaningfulness (or meaninglessness) and procreation ethics, and whether animals have meaningful lives. Part V, Philosophical Psychology and Meaning in Life, compares philosophical and psychological research on life’s meaning, explores the experience of meaningfulness, and discusses the relation between meaningfulness and desire, love, and gratitude. Part VI, Living Meaningfully: Challenges and Prospects, elaborates on topics such as suicide, suffering, education, optimism and pessimism, and their relation to life’s meaning.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Philosophy Break Your home for learning about philosophy

Introductory philosophy courses distilling the subject's greatest wisdom.

Reading Lists

Curated reading lists on philosophy's best and most important works.

Latest Breaks

Bite-size philosophy articles designed to stimulate your brain.

Enrich Your Personal Philosophy with these 6 Major Philosophies for Life

Build and enrich your personal philosophy with the help of 6 of the world's wisest philosophies for living, including Stoicism, Buddhism, and Existentialism.

17 -MIN BREAK  

This article is a modified extract from my How to Live a Good Life guide , which unpacks and compares the practical wisdom of 7 major philosophies, including Stoicism, Existentialism, and Buddhism.

A personal philosophy is a set of explanations, values, and principles by which we navigate existence: it’s a framework that describes both what we think about the world and how we can best live in it.

Crucially, whether we’re conscious of it or not, we each already have a philosophy for life.

Our personal philosophies may have been shaped by our families, cultures, religions — or perhaps we’ve formed and affirmed them ourselves.

The point is this: wherever they came from, and regardless of the extent to which we actively reflect on them, we all have a set of values and principles that underpin everything we do — from the careers we choose, to the people we like and dislike; from the politicians we vote for, to the activities that fill our free time.

What questions should a personal philosophy help us answer?

I n our day-to-day lives, our personal philosophies typically sit in the background unchallenged. As Heidegger observes , it is at moments of crisis, or when wrestling with the more abstract mysteries of life, that the fundamental principles by which we navigate existence come under the spotlight.

For an established, battle-tested personal philosophy should help us answer questions like the following:

• How can I face up to my own mortality, as well as that of my loved ones?
• What does it mean to live a good life, and how can I live one?
• What is worth my time? What isn’t? What’s the most important thing to prioritize?
• What do I owe to other people, and how can I cultivate better relationships?
• Am I seeing the reality of my situation in life clearly?
• How can I stop worrying about the future and derive more meaning and fulfillment from the here and now?
• When I encounter problems, what guiding principles should I use to forge the best path forward?
• Are there any enhancements I can make to my outlook or way of life?

Given their fundamental importance, then, the question is: are our personal philosophies working for us?

Are they justified? Do we need to better define them? Do we need to radically overhaul them? Are there any enhancements we could make that would empower us to live happier, more meaningful lives, and provide better answers to the questions above?

Building a personal philosophy: 6 example philosophies for life

T hankfully, when it comes to shaping our personal philosophies, we do not need to start from scratch. Philosophers have been sharing incredibly insightful answers to life’s big questions for thousands of years.

In the remainder of this article, we’ll consider six of the world’s wisest and most influential philosophies for living.

By exploring and discussing the wisdom of Aristotle, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Existentialism, we’ll understand why millions of people have been guided by these philosophies throughout history — and see if they offer anything we want to incorporate into our own way of life.

Hopefully, then, by the end of this article, we’ll come away with clearer ideas not just about some of the most important intellectual frameworks in history, but also about our own personal philosophies.

First up, we travel back to ancient Greece...

1. Aristotle: achieving excellence

A ristotle (384 - 322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher who, like his legendary teacher Plato (and his legendary teacher, Socrates), is considered to be one of the most significant figures in the history of Western philosophy.

One of the key innovations of Aristotle’s philosophy for life — and why it remains so enduring today — is that it’s a philosophy grounded entirely in the human world: it doesn’t look beyond everyday human experience in order to declare what’s good.

That might sound like a relatively uncontroversial approach. But many major philosophies and religions typically do look beyond the everyday to advise on what goodness is — say at a transcendent idea, realm, or God.

By contrast, Aristotle thinks the good life simply emerges from our behavior.

Born in 384 BC in Northern Greece, Aristotle joined Plato’s Academy in Athens when he was approximately 17 years old, quickly becoming Plato’s most brilliant student. He studied under Plato until the latter’s death 20 years later, whereupon Aristotle left Athens and became tutor to a young Alexander the Great. Transforming most of the subjects he investigated ― from metaphysics and ethics to politics and biology ― Aristotle is considered to be one of the most signficant figures in the history of Western philosophy.

We are not born perfect beings; we are not born evil. Almost all of us are capable of good lives, and the more we try to act according to excellence or ‘virtue’ over the course of our lifetimes, the happier we’ll be.

A key concept for Aristotle’s philosophy of the good life is eudaimonia , a Greek word broadly meaning happiness or flourishing.

Importantly, Aristotle characterizes eudaimonia not as a feeling, but as an activity . Living a good, eudaimonic life means using our rationality to flourish and fulfill our potential for excellence in all that we do.

Aristotle tells us that while luck does have a significant part to play in determining how our lives will turn out, we are all responsible for improving our existences, and many of us are capable of excellence if we put our minds to it.

The reward for excellence is happiness, for far from a fleeting psychological state, happiness (eudaimonia) consists in good rational activity ― in knowing that we are living well and fulfilling our potential as human beings.

For Aristotle, living well thus means getting out into the world and acting excellently in the heat of day-to-day life. It means flourishing and fulfilling our potential in all that we do. It means forging deep and meaningful relationships with our fellow human beings, while maintaining self-sufficiency. It means using reason to navigate all that life throws at us, and creating happiness through the active, ongoing achievement of excellence.

Though he was writing over 2,300 years ago, Aristotle’s influence today looms larger than ever. As the philosopher Robert J. Anderson wrote in his 1986 essay Purpose and Happiness in Aristotle:

There is no ancient thinker who can speak more directly to the concerns and anxieties of contemporary life than can Aristotle. Nor is it clear that any modern thinker offers as much for persons living in this time of uncertainty.

If you’re interested in learning more about Aristotle’s hugely influential philosophy for the eudaimonic life, you might like these related reads:

• The ‘Golden Mean’: Aristotle’s Guide to Living Excellently
• Aristotle On Why Leisure Defines Us More than Work
• Aristotle On the 3 Types of Friendship (and How Each Enriches Life)
• Aristotle: the Best 9 Books to Read

2. Epicureanism: living for pleasure

A ristotle wasn’t the only ancient Greek with big ideas about how we should be living our lives. Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE), on whose teachings Epicureanism is based, disagreed with the demanding elitism of Aristotle’s ethics.

While excellence is important, it is not what happiness and the good life are really guided by. The reality is far simpler, Epicurus claims: the good life is one in which pleasure and tranquility are maximized, and pain is minimized…

Though Epicureanism is often mischaracterized as a debaucherous form of hedonism, Epicurus actually saw philosophy as a kind of therapy.

We make many mistakes about ourselves and reality, Epicurus thought, and these mistakes can cause us a great deal of anxiety.

Through careful use of philosophical reasoning, however, we can knock the wind out of our false beliefs, rid ourselves of the pain they cause, and live lives of pleasure and tranquility.

As the ancient Epicurean philosopher Lucretius tells us, Epicureans think the ultimate good for human nature is as follows:

To avoid bodily pain, to have a mind free from anxiety and fear, and to enjoy the pleasures of the senses.

This emphasis on simple pleasures distinguishes Epicurus from other ancient Greek thinkers of the time — including Plato, Aristotle, and Zeno’s Stoics — whose characterization of the good life, as we’ve seen with Aristotle, focuses less on pleasure and more on the pursuit of excellence and virtue.

Another distinguishing factor is that, unlike those rival schools, Epicurus’s Garden admitted women, and even one of Epicurus’s slaves.

The Garden of Epicurus in ancient Athens — the home for Epicureanism, in which Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE) and his followers discussed philosophy, and lived lives of tranquility.

This relatively liberal admissions policy alarmed Epicurus’s opponents, who spread a number of rather slanderous stories about him and his followers. (In their more extreme accusations, for instance, the Stoics said the Epicureans lived in conditions of depraved sexual perversion).

Far from a debaucherous party, however, it is thought life in The Garden was actually remarkably simple.

The prevailing diet consisted mainly of bread, water, beans, and a little wine, and the Epicureans spent their days learning, resting, cultivating friendships, avoiding public life, and discussing philosophy.

So, though often caricatured as a rather indulgent, pleasure-obsessed philosophy, Epicureanism is actually more about living life free from anxiety and bodily pain, and places a strong emphasis on friendship and community in the search for a meaningful, happy human life.

Epicurus offers a simple yet powerful recipe for happiness that allowed Epicurean communities all around the world to flourish centuries after his death, and which we might find to be a pleasing balm for the complexities of life today — one that certainty pleased figures like Thomas Jefferson, who in a letter to William Short wrote:

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.

If you’re interested in learning more about Epicureanism, you might like these related reads:

• Epicureanism Defined: Philosophy is a Form of Therapy
• Epicurus’s Principal Doctrines: 40 Aphorisms for Living Well
• Epicurus On Why Death Should Not Concern Us
• Why Death is Nothing to Fear: Lucretius and Epicureanism
• Epicureanism: the Best 6 Books to Read

3. Stoicism: beating anxiety

L ike Epicureanism, Stoicism — the third and final philosophy for life we’ll consider from ancient Greece — suffers from being misunderstood.

Just as Epicureanism is often mischaracterized as involving reckless self-indulgence, so Stoicism is wrongly thought to be about repressing our emotions and living with a stiff upper lip.

But Stoicism’s approach is far more sophisticated than ‘grit your teeth’. In fact, Stoicism’s aim is to enhance our perspectives in such a way that we’ll never need to grit our teeth again…

In one concise email each Sunday, I break down a famous idea from philosophy. You get the distillation straight to your inbox:

💭 One short philosophical email each Sunday. Unsubscribe any time.

Stoicism was founded by the ancient Greek thinker Zeno, who arrived in Athens shortly before 300 BCE (around the same time Epicurus established The Garden).

Zeno began lecturing at the Painted Stoa (a covered walkway) in the center of Athens, and attracted a number of followers who, accordingly, came to be known as the Stoics.

Unfortunately, none of Zeno’s works survive — nor do those of his successors, Cleanthes and Chrysippus. We know of their work only through the quotations and summaries of subsequent authors.

Our knowledge of Stoicism thus mostly comes from its three major Roman practitioners and popularizers: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius — each of whom knew the now lost ancient Greek works, and built upon them with their own hugely influential contributions.

Seneca (4 BCE - 65 CE), left; Epictetus (50 CE - 135 CE), center; and Marcus Aurelius (121 CE - 180 CE).

The three major Roman Stoics do not present many arguments for why Stoicism as a broader philosophy is true: they mostly presume it is true, and then go on to discuss its profound ethical and psychological lessons.

What are those lessons? Well, perhaps the three most important are the following:

• Being a good person is the only thing that matters.
• Anyone is capable of being a good person, regardless of circumstance.
• The most crucial contribution we can make to our wellbeing is understanding the dichotomy of control.

I discuss the dichotomy of control in detail here , but it’s summarized nicely by Marcus Aurelius when he writes in his Meditations:

You have power over your mind — not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.

The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer described Stoicism in glowing terms, writing in The World as Will and Representation :

Stoic philosophy is the most complete development of practical reason in the true and genuine sense of the word; it is the highest summit to which man can attain by the mere use of his reason…

To see why Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius continue to inspire millions of people around the world today, and how you might incorporate their lessons into your own personal philosophy, consider checking out these related reads:

• The 4 Cardinal Virtues: Stoicism’s Roadmap to the Best Life Possible
• The Dichotomy of Control: a Stoic Device for a Tranquil Mind
• Stoicism and Emotion: Don’t Repress Your Feelings, Reframe Them
• Seneca: To Find Peace, Stop Chasing Unfulfillable Desires
• Amor Fati: the Stoics’ and Nietzsche’s Different Takes on Loving Fate
• Seneca On Coping with the Shortness of Life
• Stoicism: the Best 6 Books to Read
• Marcus Aurelius: the Best 5 Books to Read

4. Buddhism: ending suffering

C enturies before the therapeutic philosophical approaches of Epicureanism and Stoicism, the Buddha was sharing his recommendations for how we can see the world clearly, banish suffering, and live good lives…

Buddhism is a philosophical tradition based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, a prince who lived in ancient India around 500 BCE (exact dates vary).

The historical Buddha was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who lived in northern India around 500 BCE. Siddhartha became the ‘Buddha’ (literally meaning ‘the awakened one’) when he achieved enlightenment following years of searching for the truth about reality. He spent the rest of his life traveling to share his lessons, inspiring the various Buddhist schools that exists across the world today.

It’s thought the Buddha’s teachings were originally transmitted orally, and only written down in the 1st century BCE in Sri Lanka, with further Buddhist branches spreading throughout India, China, Tibet, Japan, and South-East Asia.

Encompassing as it does a variety of traditions, beliefs, and spiritual practices, Buddhism can be viewed as both a religion and a philosophy.

However, unlike some other religions, its original philosophical teachings are not (necessarily) grounded in any appeals to ‘supernatural’ elements like a creator God or gods, resulting in the emergence of secular Buddhist movements that engender keen philosophical engagement.

Rather than persuade us to believe in anything in particular, the Buddha focuses like a laser on just one subject: teaching us how to alleviate dukkha , a Pali word often translated as ‘suffering’, but perhaps stronger than this, intended to capture all of life’s dissatisfaction, disappointment, unfulfilled hopes, and unhappiness.

Indeed, while the ancient Greeks broadly saw the goal of life as eudaimonia, excellence, and happiness, Buddhists think the purpose of life is enlightenment: seeing the world as it really is, and thus freeing ourselves from suffering.

The Buddha packages his core teachings in his Four Noble Truths , which can be summarized as follows:

• There is dukkha (suffering)
• Suffering has a cause
• Suffering can be eliminated
• There is a path to eliminating suffering (the Eightfold Path)

Suffering ultimately springs from desire or craving (tanha) , which arises from a fundamental mismatch between our worldview and how things really are.

To banish craving and eliminate suffering, the Buddha tells us, we must correct our worldview to see reality clearly.

Three concepts are central to the Buddha’s teaching here: dukkha (suffering), impermanence (everything ends), and anātman (there is no persisting soul or self). It is by truly internalizing these ‘Three Marks of Existence’ that we can, via the Eightfold Path, see reality clearly and achieve enlightenment.

As the Buddha puts it in his first sermon, The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Teaching:

There is a path that leads to the cessation of suffering: it is, indeed, the Noble Eightfold Path: right views, right intentions, right speech, right actions, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

While perhaps best known in the West for its advocation of detaching from our desires, as well as its practices like mindfulness and meditation, the core of Buddhist philosophy has much to offer on a broad range of topics, from metaphysics to ethics, and many different schools and doctrines have grown up around its original teachings.

As the scholar Richard Gombrich puts it in his book How Buddhism Began :

I do not see how one could exaggerate the importance of the Buddha’s ethicization of the world, which I regard as a turning point in the history of civilization.

If you’re interested in learning more about Buddhist philosophy, you might like these related reads:

• Anātman, the Buddhist Doctrine of No-Self: Why ‘You’ Do Not Really Exist
• The Buddha On Ending Suffering: the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
• Buddhist Philosophy: the Best 7 Books to Read

5. Confucianism: growing morally

A round the same time the Buddha began spreading his teachings across ancient India, a key sage rose to prominence in ancient China: Confucius.

Confucianism stands in stark contrast with Buddhism. While the Buddha advocates detachment from desire and transcendence from the illusions of convention, Confucius encourages full-hearted attachment in our relationships — and deep commitment to our everyday social customs and rituals.

By paying careful attention to our social obligations and respectfully participating in the civilizations we are part of, Confucius says, we can cultivate our moral characters and live good, harmonious lives to the benefit of all.

Confucius (551 - 479 BCE) grew up within the fading force of the Zhou dynasty, and sought to understand what had made the dynasty lose its way.

A pertinent insight into Confucius’s philosophical project comes from his statement in The Analects that

I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways.

In other words, at a time on the cusp of great upheaval (Confucius lived just before China’s Warring States period), Confucius is intent on reaching back into the past, finding what worked, and transmitting the recipe for stability and wisdom to the present day.

So what exactly is Confucius promoting? What does the good life look like for Confucians, and what should we direct our efforts towards?

At its core, Confucianism is a system designed to help us maximize our moral development and live together in harmony. The good life is characterized by our loving relationships with our fellow human beings, and so being a good person largely comes down to how we interact with others and society at large.

Happiness is not such a prominent concept in most Chinese philosophies. Joy and pleasure are oft-mentioned, but eudaimonia or happiness — so important for the ancient Greek philosophies we’ve looked at — is not typically recognized as life’s end goal.

Perhaps the closest analogous role to eudaimonia in Chinese philosophy is the concept of dao.

For, just as everything is done in service to living a life in accordance with eudaimonia in much ancient Greek philosophy, so everything is done in service to living in accordance with dao in much ancient Chinese philosophy.

Dao is often translated to mean ‘the Way’, and it essentially refers to the way we ought to live: the optimal path we should follow to live the best, most harmonious life possible.

Indeed, it is outcomes like harmony and balance that are emphasized more than eudaimonia or happiness throughout Chinese philosophy.

For Confucians, dao is specifically a moral way, encapsulating how we should behave in society. It distills the exemplary behaviors of selfless heroes Confucius identifies from ancient China’s past.

Living in accordance with dao is not just valuable in this instrumental sense, however — i.e. it’s not just recommended because it promotes a lifestyle that benefits others.

Rather, living in accordance with dao is valuable for its own sake, for it means living a fully-realized human life.

Dao thus provides the path to the good life and Confucian sagehood, which represents supreme moral development — attaining a state of flawless, empathetic, spontaneous responsiveness to every possible situation.

Of course, we cannot all become sages overnight. Sometimes we’ll live in accordance with dao; sometimes we’ll fall off the path — and there are different stages of moral development along the way.

One of Confucianism’s most distinctive features is its suggestion for how we progress through these stages: namely, through observing ritual practice.

By following and perfecting particular traditions, say Confucians, we can shape our characters and better live according to the key Confucian virtues, perhaps the most important of which is ren.

Ren is notoriously difficult to translate. ‘Benevolence’ captures some of it, and it is sometimes translated as ‘humaneness’ or ‘human-heartedness’ too, but ren essentially means interacting with others guided by a sense of what’s good from their perspectives.

It means bringing the right affective state and attitude to all we do, being compassionately receptive to the needs of others in the pursuit of harmony. It is the attitude with which we expand the self to be respectful, reverent, and loyal to all.

Confucianism has shaped Chinese society more than any other philosophical framework. While scholars agree it had a ‘bad 20th century’ (Confucianism came under fire for promoting outdated and inefficient practices), contemporary Confucians think new life can be breathed into its ancient wisdom.

As the contemporary philosopher Stephen C. Angle notes in his book Growing Moral :

Even though Confucius lived more than two millennia ago… [his] teachings about how to live continue to resonate everywhere there are parents, children, and families; everywhere people feel stirrings of compassion for others, but sometimes selfishly ignore them; everywhere people wonder about how to interact with their environment… The Confucian tradition has undergone many changes as it has evolved over the centuries, and that process continues down to the present. At the heart of the tradition, though, are profound insights into the human condition that have much to teach us today.

If you’re interested in learning more about Confucian philosophy, you might like these related reads:

• Confucius: Rituals Grind Our Characters Like Pieces of Jade
• Mengzi vs. Xunzi On Human Nature: Are We Good or Evil?
• Confucius: the Best 6 Books to Read

6. Existentialism: overcoming nihilism

L eaving behind the ancient philosophies of east and west, we’re zooming forward to one of the most influential philosophies of the 20th and 21st centuries: existentialism.

Whereas Confucianism is all about respecting the familial and societal contexts in which you find yourself, existentialism is about defining yourself from a starting point of absolute freedom.

The frank insights of existentialism have hugely influenced popular culture, film, literature, art, and attitudes the world over — and continue to do so today.

Now, existentialism is not a set of fixed prescriptive principles; it does not strictly outline how we should live, and the thinkers labeled as ‘existentialist’ — from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger to Sartre, Beauvoir, and Camus — differ greatly in their views.

French philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir in a Parisian cafe in 1946.

We might then wonder how existentialism can function as a guide to life.

Well, despite the disagreement among existentialist thinkers, there is much overlap in their thought — and their forensic analysis of the human condition sheds much light on our existential situation and how we might better think about it.

Indeed, existentialists tend to agree that traditional approaches to philosophy have not really focused enough on our individual lived experience. If they had done so, they would have realized that our realities do not fit into neat little conceptual boxes, and neither do our values.

Simply describing the cosmos, existentialists argue, gets us no closer to surviving it — and objectively defining ‘goodness’ with stale theory gets us no closer to embodying it.

The task of life is to each find a reason to live . A reason not that we simply subscribe to unthinkingly, nor that we adopt to live up to the expectations of others, but one that we ourselves affirm.

The chief guide to the good life for existentialism is thus authenticity.

To live a good life, we must forge our own paths according to what we affirm; not following the rulebooks of others, not conforming to societal norms, but deliberately carving our own paths through life.

As Nietzsche puts it in his book, Untimely Meditations :

Nobody can build you the bridge over which you must cross the river of life, nobody but you alone. True, there are countless paths and bridges and demigods that would like to carry you across the river, but only at the price of yourself; you would pledge yourself and lose it. In this world there is one unique path which no one but you may walk. Where does it lead? Do not ask; take it.

The richly diverse work of key existentialist philosophers can be brought together to offer a general picture of what it means to live a good, authentic human life from an existentialist perspective.

As contemporary philosopher Jennifer Anna Gosetti-Ferencei claims in her book On Being and Becoming :

If philosophy can be applied to spiritual ailments, existentialism is one of the most versatile prescriptions.

If you’re interested in learning more about existentialism, you might like these related reads:

• What is Existentialism? 3 Core Principles of Existentialist Philosophy
• Existence Precedes Essence: What Sartre Really Meant
• Authentic Love: Simone de Beauvoir on What Makes a Healthy Relationship
• Heidegger On Being Authentic in an Inauthentic World
• Sartre’s Waiter, ‘Bad Faith’, and the Harms of Inauthenticity
• Kierkegaard On Finding the Meaning of Life
• Albert Camus on Coping with Life's Absurdity
• Existentialism: the Best 9 Books to Read

What’s your personal philosophy for life?

I asked this question to Philosophy Break’s 13,000+ subscribers, as well as what they think makes life worth living, and their answers represent a goldmine of wisdom and life experience. I feature them in this article: How to Live a Fulfilling Life, According to Philosophy Break Subscribers .

Finally, the introductions above offer only a tiny insight into the depth and wisdom of the major philosophies covered. If you’re interested in cultivating a fuller understanding of how they can enrich your personal philosophy, you might like my self-paced guide, How to Live a Good Life , which explores and compares each philosophy across 56 concise lessons. Join 400+ members inside:

How to Live a Good Life (According to 7 of the World’s Wisest Philosophies)

Explore and compare the wisdom of Stoicism, Existentialism, Buddhism and beyond to forever enrich your personal philosophy.

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for our courses)

Get one mind-opening philosophical idea distilled to your inbox every Sunday (free):

About the author.

Jack Maden Founder Philosophy Break

Having received great value from studying philosophy for 15+ years (picking up a master’s degree along the way), I founded Philosophy Break in 2018 as an online social enterprise dedicated to making the subject’s wisdom accessible to all. Learn more about me and the project here.

If you enjoy learning about humanity’s greatest thinkers, you might like my free Sunday email. I break down one mind-opening idea from philosophy, and invite you to share your view.

Subscribe for free here , and join 13,000+ philosophers enjoying a nugget of profundity each week (free forever, no spam, unsubscribe any time).

Get one mind-opening philosophical idea distilled to your inbox every Sunday (free)

From the Buddha to Nietzsche: join 13,000+ subscribers enjoying a nugget of profundity from the great philosophers every Sunday:

★★★★★ (50+ reviews for Philosophy Break). Unsubscribe any time.

Take Another Break

Each break takes only a few minutes to read, and is crafted to expand your mind and spark your philosophical curiosity.

Hannah Arendt On Standing Up to the Banality of Evil

5 -MIN BREAK

Pantheism: Spinoza and the God that Einstein Believed In

2 -MIN BREAK

Mono No Aware: Beauty and Impermanence in Japanese Philosophy

4 -MIN BREAK

John Rawls: How a ‘Veil of Ignorance’ Can Help Us Build a Just Society

3 -MIN BREAK

View All Breaks

PHILOSOPHY 101

• What is Philosophy?
• Why is Philosophy Important?
• Philosophy’s Best Books
• About Philosophy Break
• Support the Project
• Instagram   /   Threads   /   Facebook
• TikTok   /   Twitter

Philosophy Break is an online social enterprise dedicated to making the wisdom of philosophy instantly accessible (and useful!) for people striving to live happy, meaningful, and fulfilling lives. Learn more about us here . To offset a fraction of what it costs to maintain Philosophy Break, we participate in the Amazon Associates Program. This means if you purchase something on Amazon from a link on here, we may earn a small percentage of the sale, at no extra cost to you. This helps support Philosophy Break, and is very much appreciated.

Access our generic Amazon Affiliate link here

Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy

© Philosophy Break Ltd, 2024

Your complimentary articles

You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please

Question of the Month

What is life, the following answers to this fundamental question each win a random book..

Life is the aspect of existence that processes, acts, reacts, evaluates, and evolves through growth (reproduction and metabolism). The crucial difference between life and non-life (or non-living things) is that life uses energy for physical and conscious development. Life is anything that grows and eventually dies, i.e., ceases to proliferate and be cognizant. Can we say that viruses, for example, are cognizant? Yes, insofar as they react to stimuli; but they are alive essentially because they reproduce and grow. Computers are non-living because even though they can cognize, they do not develop biologically (grow), and cannot produce offspring. It is not cognition that determines life, then: it is rather proliferation and maturation towards a state of death; and death occurs only to living substances.

Or is the question, ‘What is the meaning (purpose) of life?’ That’s a real tough one. But I think that the meaning of life is the ideals we impose upon it, what we demand of it. I’ve come to reaffirm my Boy Scout motto, give or take a few words, that the meaning of life is to: Do good, Be Good, but also to Receive Good. The foggy term in this advice, of course, is ‘good’; but I leave that to the intuitive powers that we all share.

There are, of course, many intuitively clear examples of Doing Good: by retrieving a crying baby from a dumpster; by trying to rescue someone who’s drowning. Most of us would avoid murdering; and most of us would refrain from other acts we find intuitively wrong. So our natural intuitions determine the meaning of life for us; and it seems for other species as well, for those intuitions resonate through much of life and give it its purpose.

Tom Baranski, Somerset, New Jersey

The ceramic artist Edmund de Waal places an object in front of him and begins to tell a story. Even if the patina, chips and signs of repair of the inanimate object hint at its history, the story is told by a living observer. A living thing is an object that contains its story within itself. Life’s story is held in the genome, based in DNA. Maybe other ways for memorising the story may be discovered, but in environments subject to common chemical processes, common methods are likely to emerge.

Although we have only the example of the Earth, it shows that life will evolve to fill every usable niche, and to secure and further diversify those niches. This should not be thought of as purposeful. Life embodies a ‘plan’, but one that does not specify ends, only methods acquired iteratively. Inanimate processes can be cyclic but not iterative: they do not learn from past mistakes.

Life exists at many levels. Life is also a process through which energy and materials are transformed; but so is non-life. The difference is that the process of life is intimately linked to story it contains, whereas non-life is indifferent to the story we impose upon it. Yet life is only a story, so it can act only through matter. Therefore life is by nature a toolmaker. Its tools are potentially everything that exists, and its workshop is potentially the whole universe. So why do humans risk undermining the life of which they are part? Because they try to impose upon it a story of their own making. Yet humans, the ‘tool-making animals’, are themselves tools of life, in an unplanned experiment.

Nicholas Taylor, Little Sandhurst, Berkshire

First the technical definition. Life is self-organising chemistry which reproduces itself and passes on its evolved characteristics, encoded in DNA. In thermodynamics terms, it has the ability to reduce local entropy or disorganisation, thus locally contravening the third law of thermodynamics.

But what is life really about , if anything? The two possibilities are, life is either a meaningless accident arising from the laws of physics operating in a meaningless universe, or it is a step in a planned ‘experiment’. I say ‘step’, because this cannot be the end. The current state of life is as yet too unstable and undeveloped for it to be the end. And I say ‘experiment’ because the evolutionary nature of life suggests that its future is not known. If therefore the universe itself has a purpose, it seems most likely to be to explore what the outcome of the evolutionary experiment would be.

But what will be the outcome? If, as many physicists now believe, the universe is only information, then harnessing all the resources of the universe in one giant evolutionary process could plausibly provide a useful outcome for a species clever enough to create the universe in the first place. On this interpretation, life will ultimately organise all the physical resources of the universe into a single self-conscious intelligence, which in turn will then be able to interact with its creator(s).

Dr Harry Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the embodiment of selfishness! Life is selfish because it is for itself in two ways: it is for its own survival, and it is for its own reproduction. This desire is embodied in an adaptive autocatalytic chemical system, forming life’s embodied mind.

Anything that is not itself is the other; and the collection of others constitute its environment. The organism must destructively use the other to satisfy its reproductive desire, but on achieving this, it produces an additional other – but now one that also embodies its own selfish aim and the means to satisfy this aim. Therefore, even by an organism satisfying its desire, it makes the continuing satisfaction of its desires ever more difficult to achieve. A partial solution to this dilemma is for genetically-related entities to form a cooperating society.

The underlying mechanism of evolution is therefore the iteration of the embodied desire within an ever more complex competitive and social environment. Over vast numbers of iterations, this process forces some life-forms along a pathway that solves the desire for survival and reproduction by developing ever more complex and adaptable minds. This is achieved by supplementing their underlying cellular embodied chemistry with a specialist organ (although still based on chemistry) that we call its brain, able to rapidly process electrical signals. Advanced minds can collect and process vast inputs of data by ‘projecting’ the derived output back onto its environmental source, that is by acting. However advanced it might be, an organism is still driven by the same basic needs for survival and reproduction. The creative process, however, leads the organism towards an increasingly aesthetic experience of the world. This is why for us the world we experience is both rich and beautiful.

Dr Steve Brewer, St Ives, Cornwall

In our scientific age, we look to the biologists to define ‘life’ for us. After all, it is their subject matter. I believe they have yet to reach consensus, but a biological definition would be something like, ‘Life is an arrangement of molecules with qualities of self-sustenance and self-replication’. This kind of definition might serve the purposes of biologists, but for me, it has five deficiencies. First, any definition of life by biologists would have little utility outside biology because of its necessary inclusiveness. We humans would find ourselves in a class of beings that included the amoeba. ‘Life’ would be the limited common properties of all organisms, including the lowest. Second, the scientific definition of life is necessarily an external one. I think that knowing what life is, as opposed to defining it, requires knowing it from within. Non-sentient organisms live, but they do not know life. Third, in the scientific definition, there is no place for life having value. However, many would say that life has value in its own right – that it is not simply that we humans value life and so give it value, but that it has value intrinsically. Fourth, there is the question of life as a whole having a purpose or goal. This notion is not scientific, but one wonders if the tools of science are fit to detect any evolutionary purpose, if there is one. Fifth, for the scientists, life is a set of biological conditions and processes. However, everywhere and always, people have conceived of a life after biological death, a life of spirit not necessarily dependent on the physical for existence.

The scientific definition of life is valid in its context, but otherwise I find it impoverished. I believe there is a hierarchy of living beings from the non-sentient, to the sentient, to humans, and perhaps up to God. When I ask, ‘What is life? I want to know what life is at its highest form. I believe life at its best is spirit: it is active, sentient, feeling, thinking, purposive, valuing, social, other-respecting, relating, and caring.

John Talley, Rutherfordton, NC

I listen enthralled to scientific debate on what, how, when and where life was created. However, questions remain which may never be resolved. In this vacuum, philosophers and religious thinkers have attempted to give meaning to life by suggesting goals: Plato suggested the acquisition of knowledge, Aristotle to practice virtue, and the Stoics, mental fortitude and self-control. Today’s philosophers echo the existentialist view that life is full of absurdity, although they also tell us that we must put meaning into life by making our own values in an indifferent world. But if life is just a journey from womb to tomb, will such ‘meaning’ be sufficient to allow the traveller at journey’s end to feel that it was worthwhile?

Perhaps the hypothesis upon which Ivan Tyrrell and Joe Griffin have based their therapy could help (see Human Givens , 2003). They describe that we are born with evolved needs that seek satisfaction from our environment. These are physical and emotional needs, which, when enough of them are met, ensure the health of the individual, maximising his or her ability to achieve meaning in life. Griffin and Tyrrell have proven empirically that when sufficient needs are met an individual will enjoy mental and physical health, unless there is damage or toxicity in the environment. Some of these needs were identified by Maslow in his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ in his 1943 paper ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review , 50 (4), but Griffin and Tyrrell focus more clearly on emotional needs such as:

• To achieve, and to feel competent

• To fulfil our sense of autonomy and control

• To be emotionally connected to other people and part of a larger community

• To have a sense of status within social groupings

• For privacy and rest, to reflect and consolidate learning

• And yes – to have meaning in one’s life

Meaning becomes difficult, if not impossible, to achieve if these needs are insufficiently satisfied. Unfortunately, modern society seeks meaning to life through materialism, to the detriment of our biological needs, leading to dissatisfaction and a consequent inability to find meaning. The result is an exponential increase in mental ill-health. Sadly, then, many of us will not experience the satisfaction of a meaningful life journey.

Caryl A. Fuchs, Flecknoe, Warwickshire

Life is the eternal and unbroken flow of infinite rippling simultaneous events that by a fortuitous chain has led to this universe of elements we are all suspended in, that has somehow led to this present experience of sentient existence. Animal life (excluding that of humans) shows that life is a simple matter of being, by means of a modest routine of eating, sleeping and reproducing. Animals balance their days between these necessities, doing only what their bodies ask of them. The life of vegetation is not far from that of animals. They eat and sleep and reproduce in their own way, for the same result. So life is a beautiful and naturally harmonious borrowing of energy.

Yet we have taken it for granted. We have lost the power to simply be happy eating, sleeping, reproducing, believing we need a reason to be alive, a purpose and a goal to reach, so that on our deathbeds (something we have been made to fear) we can look back and tell ourselves we have done something with our lives. Life has lost its purpose because we have tried to give it one. The truth is that we are no more significant than the sand by the sea or the clouds in the sky. No more significant. But as significant.

No matter what your race, religion or gender, when you first step outside your door in the morning and feel the fresh air in your lungs and the morning sun on your face, you close your eyes and smile. In that moment you are feeling life as it should be. No defining, no understanding, no thinking. Just that feeling of pure bliss. For that is what life is.

Courtney Walsh, Farnborough, Hampshire

Of all Webster’s definitions of ‘life’, the one for me that best covers it is, “the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual.” Indeed, life is a continuum of accomplishment, failure, discovery, dilemma, challenge, boredom, sadness, disappointment, appreciation, the giving and receipt of grace, empathy, peace, and our reactions to all sorts of stimuli – touch, love, friendship, loss… One can either merely exist or try to achieve, working through the difficult times, perhaps learning a thing or two. Everyone has a story. I’ve been surprised when learning something new about an acquaintance or friend that must have been very difficult to manage or survive; but there they are in front of me. It’s how you come out on the other side of those challenging times that is important. How you land, get on with it, and keep on truckin’.

Life cannot be planned: there’s fate, and there’s simple bad luck. Failure can bring crushing disappointment, or you can try and make a new plan. A person can waste an inordinate amount of time mourning what they don’t have, or plans that don’t work out. But who wants to waste that much time regretting?

Life has happy surprises, small moments to cherish. It’s a matter of weighing the good and bad times – the challenge is to balance both, ending up with a life looked back on that was worth the mighty effort. I’m not meaning to sound like a Pollyanna – I assure you I’m not – it’s just more pleasant to strive for a modicum of equilibrium. If I can manage that, I’m good.

Cheryl Anderson, Kenilworth, Illinois

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more. It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.” ( Macbeth , Act V, Scene V)

These words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth summarize interesting ideas about the nature of life. The first line expresses two of the three marks of existence as per Buddhist thinking, Anicca , impermanence, and Anatta , non-self: a “walking shadow” is as insubstantial and impermanent as anything imaginable; a “poor player” neither creates nor directs his role, and the character being played only exists because of an author. Macbeth’s entire statement, particularly the last sentence, expresses the third Buddhist mark of existence: Dukkha , dissatisfaction.

The stage metaphor in the second line represents boundaries or limits. Scientific research into the nature of life often focuses on the material, energetic, and temporal limitations within which life can exist. The temporal limit of life is known as death. In the spirit of this interpretation, the idea of being “heard no more” could imply that life constantly evolves new forms while discarding older ones.

Macbeth hints at the wisdom of mystery traditions while anticipating the revelations of genetic science by stating that life “is a tale”. Now, this refers to the language-based, or code-based, nature of life. Readers may consider this in relation to DNA and RNA, and also in relation to John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (The implications of the phrase “told by an idiot” exceed the scope of this inquiry.)

In five concise and poetic lines, Shakespeare defined life as an impermanent, non-self-directed, unsatisfactory, limited, ever-changing, and ultimately insignificant code.

Devon Hall, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Life is the realisation of its own contingency. But that’s not the end of it; it’s merely the means towards the creation of meaning. Life is thus a constant process of becoming, through creating values and meaning. Life is therefore perpetual transcendence, always moving into the future, creating the present. Life is also acceptance: the acceptance of finitude; acceptance of one’s responsibilities; acceptance of other human beings’ existence and choices. Life is neither fixed nor absolute, it is ambiguous; life is the possibilities entailed by existence. Life is the consciousness of humanity; it is perception of the world and the universe. So life is sadness; life is death. Life is suffering and destruction. But life is also happiness; life is living. Life is joy and creativity. Life is finding a cause to survive, a reason not to die – not yet. It is youth and old age, with everything in between. Overall, life is beautiful – ugliness is fleeting. Corpses and skeletons are lugubrious; living flesh is resplendent, all bodies are statuesque. Human life is love and hate, but it can only be life when we are with others. Life as fear and hatred is not real life at all. For some, life is God. We would all then be His children. We are nevertheless the spawn of the Earth.

Human existence is freedom – an edifice of plurality.

Greg Chatterton, Cupar, Fife

If the ancients could do philosophy in the marketplace, maybe I can too. So I employed some modern technology by texting the question ‘What is Life?’ to all my contacts. I didn’t explain the context of the question, to avoid lyrical waxing. Here are a sample of replies. Life is: being conscious of yourself and others; a being with a soul; experience; what you make it; your chance to be a success; family; living as long as you can; not being dead; greater than the sum of its parts; complex chemical organisation; different things to different people; a mystery; a journey; don’t know; a quote from a song, “baby don’t hurt me”; life begins after death. I asked a regular in my favourite café. They said, “man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” A person suffering from a degenerative disease answered: “life is sh** then you die.” Another with the same illness interviewed in our local newspaper said, “My life is a mission to help other sufferers.” A colleague said “some would want to shoot themselves if they had my life, but I’m happy.” I posed the question at my art club and we did no painting that day…

I was surprised to find that I had no immediate definition of life myself (hence the idea to ask) and that there is no consensus (only one reply was repeated), but then, that also is life.

I sometimes catch myself considering life when I arrive at the turning point on my evening walk. It’s a dark spot which makes stargazing easier, and the heavens are a good place to start, since life as we know it began there (the heavier atoms like carbon which make up our bodies initially formed in dying Red Giant stars). This makes me feel two things about my life: it’s a dot because the cosmos is immense; but it’s an important dot in the cosmos because I can consider it.

Kristine Kerr, Gourock, Renfrewshire

Next Question of the Month

Now we know what life is, the next question is, How Should I Live? Please give and justify your ethical advice in less than 400 words. The prize is a semi-random book from our book mountain. Subject lines or envelopes should be marked ‘Question of the Month’, and must be received by 9th June. If you want a chance of getting a book, please include your physical address. Submission implies permission to reproduce your answer physically and electronically. Thank you.

This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy . X

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Meaning in Life: What Makes Our Lives Meaningful?

Author: Matthew Pianalto Category: Ethics ,   Phenomenology and Existentialism ,   Philosophy of Religion Word Count: 997

Editors’ note: this essay and its companion essay, The Meaning of Life: What’s the Point? both explore the concept of meaning in relation to human life. This essay focuses on meaning in individual human lives, whereas the other addresses the meaning of life as a whole.

Imagine becoming so fed up with your job and home life that you decide to give it all up. Now you spend your days lounging on a beach.

One day, your friend Alex finds you on the beach and questions your new lifestyle: “You’re wasting your life!” says Alex. You tell Alex that you were unhappy and explain that you are much happier now.

However, Alex responds: “There’s more to life than happiness. You aren’t doing anything meaningful with your life!” [1]

But what is a meaningful life?

Here we will review some influential answers to this question.

1. Cosmic Pessimism vs. Everyday Meaning

Pessimists might say that life has no ultimate or cosmic meaning and thus that a beach bum’s life is no more or less meaningful—in the grand scheme of things—than the lives of Beethoven, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Marie Curie. [2]

However, many philosophers argue that even if there is no ultimate meaning of life, there can be meaning in life. Our lives can be meaningful in ordinary ways, ways that don’t require that we play a special role in some kind of grand cosmic narrative. Call this everyday meaning . [3] What might give our lives this kind of meaning?

2. Subjectivism

Subjectivists say that someone’s life is meaningful if it is deeply fulfilling, engaging, or satisfying. [4] And different people find different things meaningful; a challenging career might be engaging and fulfilling for others, but boring and unsatisfying to you: you may find life on a beach much more fulfilling.

Some subjectivists distinguish between the judgment that one is fulfilled and actually being fulfilled. Fulfillment feels good, but it seems possible to be mistaken about whether we are fulfilled. Perhaps, as you lounge on the beach, you confuse being merely content with fulfillment. [5] If you tried other things like writing poetry, volunteering, or starting a business, they might end up being more fulfilling, and hence more meaningful for you. [6]

Subjectivism, however, has counterintuitive implications. Suppose someone found it fulfilling to spend all their time gazing at the sand. This may seem too bizarre, aimless, or trivial to credit as meaningful. And what if someone found meaning in ethically monstrous activities, like torturing babies or puppies? Vicious projects like these don’t seem to add positive meaning to someone’s life. [7]

Someone would have to be a rather atypical sort of human being to be truly fulfilled by sand-gazing or puppy-torturing. Could such strange lives count as meaningful? Subjectivists may say yes, but many would reject that answer and conclude that subjectivism is false.

3. Objective Meaning

Objective accounts hold that meaningful lives involve projects of positive value, such as improving our character, exercising our creativity, and making the world a better place by pursuing and promoting truth, justice, and beauty. [8]

Being a beach bum doesn’t really make the world worse , but it doesn’t make much of a positive contribution either. Your friend Alex is concerned that you are squandering your potential and thereby failing to make something meaningful of your life.

However, your decision to become a beach bum could be a way of rebelling against the “rat race” of a workaholic and overly competitive society. Perhaps you are choosing to cultivate a life of mindfulness and aesthetic contemplation of natural beauty, in protest against superficial or soul-crushing social norms. Framed that way, your life seems to align with important, enduring, objective values.

Objective accounts of meaning, however, must explain why some activities are objectively more meaningful than others.

The difficulty is that what seems frivolous or pointless from one point of view may seem valuable and worthwhile from another. For some, climbing Mount Everest might count as an admirable exercise of physical and mental endurance, an inspiring achievement. Others may think it is stupid to climb big rocks, risking death and wasting resources that could be directed toward other more valuable causes.

But perhaps such people are just being narrow-minded. The meaningfulness of being a beach bum, a mountain-climber, or anything else might depend on our motives or options and not just on what the activity involves. [9]

4. Hybrid Theory

The hybrid theory of meaning in life combines insights from subjectivism and objective accounts: a meaningful life provides fulfillment and does so through devotion to objectively valuable projects. [10]

Hybrid theory differs from objective accounts because it insists that a meaningful life must also be fulfilling for the person living it. There are many such projects available to us, since there are many fulfilling ways, given our distinctive personalities and abilities, that we can engage with values like truth, justice, and beauty.

However, just as a subjectively fulfilling life might seem trivial or despicable, perhaps a meaningful life doesn’t always feel fulfilling. [11]

Consider George Bailey in the classic film It’s a Wonderful Life . [12] George thinks his life has been wasted and wishes that he’d never been born. Luckily, his guardian angel Clarence rescues George from a suicide attempt and helps George understand how meaningful his life choices have been. Hybrid theory implies that George’s life now becomes meaningful because he is finally fulfilled by all his good works, but objective accounts suggest that George’s life was meaningful all along even though he didn’t realize it! [13]

Recall the opening scenario: did you ditch a meaningful (but sometimes frustrating) life for the beach?

5. Conclusion

The psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl held that the search for meaning is the fundamental human drive. [14] He claimed that a sense of meaning in life gives people the strength to persevere and even thrive despite the adversity and injustice we must sometimes confront. [15]

Questions about meaning in life often arise when we suspect that something is missing from our lives. Despite their differences, the theories surveyed above seem to agree that there are many things we might do—or try—that would be meaningful. Talking about it with your friend Alex may be a good place to start. [16] Why? Because good relationships frequently rank as important sources of meaning: perhaps meaning is often made—or discovered—together.

[1] Emily Esfahani Smith (2017) uses this distinction between happiness and meaning in life in her survey of psychological research on meaning in life. See also her TED Talk, “There’s More to Life Than Being Happy.”

[2] See, e.g., Benatar (2017) and Weinberg (2021) for defenses of the pessimistic outlook. At least one theist agrees with the pessimists that if life has no divine meaning or purpose, then nothing we do or become has any lasting significance and that our lives are all equally absurd: see Craig (2013).

[3] Many philosophers who propose theories of meaning in life are either agnostic or skeptical of the idea that life as a whole has any divine meaning or purpose. See, e.g., Wolf (2010). Of course, if one does think life as a whole has divine meaning or purpose, then having meaning in one’s life might well involve living in accord with the supernatural point of existence. Some of the accounts of meaning in life are consistent with religious ideas about the meaning of life; I leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out which views will or will not cohere with their own religious convictions.

[4] This idea is developed in the final chapter of Taylor (2000).

[5] John Stuart Mill issues a similar warning against conflating happiness and contentment in Utilitarianism , Chapter 2.

[6] This point is developed in more sophisticated subjectivist accounts of meaning in life. See, e.g. Calhoun (2015) and Parmer (2021).

[7] See Campbell and Nyholm (2015) or their contribution in Landau (2022) for discussion of “anti-meaning”: activities, projects, and lives that have negative and destructive significance.

[8] See Metz (2013) for discussion of several different accounts of this sort; Metz defends his own version in the final chapter. On creativity, see Taylor (1987) and Matheson (2018).

[9] Examples like the beach bum are often under-described–including in this essay! It is worth taking such examples and considering variations of intentions, motives, circumstances, and so forth in order to consider how changes in these various elements may alter our assessment of the meaningfulness of the life or activity. Whole lives are usually, if not always, more complex than these brief examples. Philosophers who endorse narrative theories of meaning in life would suggest that the focus on particular activities and roles fails to consider that a meaningful life might also need to make holistic sense as a meaningful story. See Kauppinen (2012).

[10] The term “project” here includes not just completable activities like painting a picture but also open-ended activities such as maintaining strong relationships with friends and family. This approach is developed by Susan Wolf in Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , and in three essays collected in Wolf (2014): see the essays in Part II: “The Meanings of Lives,” “Happiness and Meaning: Two Aspects of the Good Life,” and “Happiness and Morality.” The text of Meaning in Life and Why It Matters is available at the Tanner Lectures website. See the print edition for excellent commentaries on Wolf’s position and a response by Wolf. A similar view is developed by Peter Singer in How Are We to Live? (1993), Chapter 10.

[11] Another potential problem is that while hybrid theory aims to take the attractive features of subjective fulfillment and objective accounts of meaning in life, it inherits the possible problems with both views, too. Furthermore, if subjective and objective accounts contradict each other, hybrid theory might be inconsistent.

[12] This point is developed, using the example of George Bailey, in Smuts (2013).

[13] For a similar study in a life that seems very meaningful from the outside (a successful career, prosperity, and a happy family), but is wracked by unhappiness, existential dread, and moral guilt within, see Leo Tolstoy’s My Confession (2005). Tolstoy’s crisis of meaning is often discussed in the literature on meaning in life, both for the gripping way in which he describes his fear of death and his feeling that life is meaningless, and for his discussion of the solution to the problem to be found in religious faith.

[14] Frankl (2006).

[15] Of course, this does not justify the actions of those who have put others in despicable situations. For Frankl, the point is about motivation rather than justification. Revolting against oppressors, for example, may be a highly meaningful project for those who are oppressed. See also Camus (2018).

[16] On relationships and other sources of meaning in life, see Smith (2017). Further recommended reading: Landau (2017), Landau (2022), and Singer (2009). For discussion of how ordinary “folk” intuitions about meaning relate to various philosophical theories of meaning in life, see Fuhrer and Cova (2022).

Benatar, David (2017). The Human Predicament . Oxford University Press.

Calhoun, Cheshire (2015). “Geographies of Meaningful Living,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 32(1): 15-34.

Campbell, Stephen M. and Sven Nyholm (2015). “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1(4): 694-711.

Camus, Albert (2018). The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays . Trans. Justin O’Brien. Vintage.

Craig, William Lane (2013). “The Absurdity of Life Without God.” In: Jason Seachris, ed. Exploring the Meaning of Life . Wiley-Blackwell: 153-172.

Frankl, Viktor E. (2006). Man’s Search for Meaning . Beacon Press. Originally published in 1946.

Fuhrer, Joffrey and Florian Cova (2022). “What makes a life meaningful? Folk intuitions about the content and shape of meaningful lives,” Philosophical Psychology.

Kauppinen, Antti (2012). “Meaningfulness and Time,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 84(2): 345-377.

Landau, Iddo (2017). Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World . Oxford University Press.

Landau, Iddo (2022). The Oxford Handbook of Meaning in Life . Oxford University Press.

Metz, Thaddeus (2013). Meaning in Life . Oxford University Press

Mill, John Stuart (1863). Utilitarianism .

Parmer, W. Jared (2021). “Meaning in Life and Becoming More Fulfilled,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 20(1): 1-29.

Singer, Irving (2009). Meaning in Life, Vol. 1: The Creation of Value . MIT Press.

Singer, Peter (1993). How Are We to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest . Prometheus.

Smith, Emily E. (2017). The Power of Meaning . Crown.

Smith, Emily E. (2017). “There’s More to Life Than Being Happy.” TED.com.

Smuts, Aaron (2013). “The Good Cause Account of the Meaning of Life,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 41(4): 536-562.

Taylor, Richard (2000). Good and Evil . Prometheus. Originally published in 1970.

Taylor, Richard (1987). “Time and Life’s Meaning,” The Review of Metaphysics 40(4): 675-686.

Tolstoy, Leo (2005). My Confession . Translated by Aylmer Maude. Originally published in Russian in 1882.

Weinberg, Rivka (2021).  “Ultimate Meaning: We Don’t Have It, We Can’t Get It, and We Should Be Very, Very Sad,” Journal of Controversial Ideas 1(1), 4.

Wolf, Susan (2010). Meaning in Life and Why It Matters . Princeton University Press. ( Wolf’s lecture is also available at the Tanner Lecture Series website ).

— (2014). The Variety of Values . Oxford University Press.

Related Essays

Happiness: What is it to be Happy? by Kiki Berk

The Philosophy of Humor: What Makes Something Funny?  by Chris A. Kramer

Existentialism by Addison Ellis

Camus on the Absurd: The Myth of Sisyphus by Erik Van Aken

John Stuart Mill on the Good Life: Higher-Quality Pleasures by Dale E. Miller

Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

What Is It to Love Someone? by Felipe Pereira

Ethical Egoism: The Morality of Selfishness : by Nathan Nobis

Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism  by Brandon Boesch

Is Immortality Desirable? by Felipe Pereira

Hope by Michael Milona & Katie Stockdale 

Nietzsche and the Death of God by Justin Remhof

Translations

Turkish , Turkish , Thai

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF . 

About the Author

Matthew Pianalto is a Professor of Philosophy at Eastern Kentucky University. He is the author of On Patience (2016) and numerous articles and book chapters on ethics. philosophy.eku.edu/pianalto

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 32 thoughts on “ meaning in life: what makes our lives meaningful ”.

• Pingback: ความหมายชีวิต: ประเด็นคืออะไร? – ผมเป็นคนจริงจังเกินไปสินะครับ
• Pingback: ความหมายในชีวิต: อะไรทำให้ชีวิตเรามีความหมาย – ผมเป็นคนจริงจังเกินไปสินะครับ
• Pingback: Philosophy as a Way of Life – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Qual o sentido da vida? (S03E06) – Esclarecimento
• Pingback: Ancient Cynicism: Rejecting Civilization and Returning to Nature – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Aristotle on Friendship: What Does It Take to Be a Good Friend? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The Meaning of Life: What’s the Point? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: The Philosophy of Humor: What Makes Something Funny? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Philosophy News
• Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update | Daily Nous
• Pingback: Ethical Egoism: The Morality of Selfishness – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Ethics and Absolute Poverty: Peter Singer and Effective Altruism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: “God is dead”: Nietzsche and the Death of God – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Hope – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Is Immortality Desirable? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Existentialism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Camus on the Absurd: The Myth of Sisyphus – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
• Pingback: Happiness: What is it to be Happy? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Comments are closed.

Developing Your Personal Philosophy of Life

7 tensions to resolve..

Posted January 8, 2020 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

From Plato to Stephen Covey, it’s long been argued that life is more meaningful if guided by a foundational personal philosophy .

To that end, here are seven tensions the resolutions of which can help you develop your personal philosophy. Of course, you could choose a moderate position within each of these polar pairs but often people choose to aim toward one side or the other.

Planning vs. living in the moment. Clichés exist on both poles. Ben Franklin said, “By failing to prepare, you’re preparing to fail.” On the other hand, Emily Dickinson wrote, “Forever is composed of nows.” In deciding which way you want to lean, it may help to look at your track record: To date, has your planning been worth it? Or has your planning too often been wrong? Has it shepherded you toward worthy paths or closed to you opportunities you should have taken? Or has your planning too often kept you from appreciating your present moments, always looking ahead as I foolishly did when, as a 20-year-old touring Paris, I raced through the Louvre so I could make it to the Tuilieries before closing time?

Practical vs. idealistic. We have been preached both: “Be realistic,” and on the other hand, “Dream big. Follow your passion.” Which side to tilt toward may depend on your self-efficacy : Bright, driven, non-procrastinators have a better chance of achieving their idealistic dreams or at least, as suggested in another cliché: “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars,” (Norman Vincent Peale).

Disciplined vs. laid-back. Many people find it more pleasurable to be laid-back. The question is whether that will contribute, net, to your success and contentment, or at minimum, will the decrement to your success be worth it? On the other hand, some people enjoy the process of being disciplined or at least are willing to be disciplined in the service of more successful outcomes. The question is, “How about you?”

Reflective vs. impulsive. Some of this is hard-wired. Impulsivity has a significant genetic component , but it’s not completely genetic. Again, look at your track record: Have you been more successful by making quick decisions and thus getting more done? Or have you been more successful when taking your time, reflecting, considering more of the implications?

Just vs. merciful. Solid arguments can be made for leaning either way. Justice, by definition, means that people get what, on the merits, they deserve. How primary is that to you? Other people prefer a life tilted more toward mercy: Even if, on the merits, a person deserves less, the mercy-centric person leans toward giving people a break. How about you?

Self-critical vs. self-accepting. Some people feel it’s worth being hard on themselves: being self-critical and ever trying to improve. On the other hand, other people feel that’s too big a price to pay and/or that enough of who they are is hard-wired or has been molded by early experience and current externalities that they’d rather focus on self-acceptance.

Self-reliant vs. communitarian. There are quotable quotes at both poles. Charlotte Bronte in Jane Eyre wrote, “I care for myself. The more solitary, the more friendless, the more unsustained I am, the more I will respect myself.” In contrast, Hillary Clinton famously said, “It takes a village.” Again, look at your track record. Has your reliance on other people yielded more benefit than liability to you and perhaps to them? Or have you done better by focusing on self-reliance?

The takeaway

So, do you want to write bullets or a paragraph or two describing your personal philosophy? If so, yes, consider the aforementioned seven tensions but there may be other factors that merit consideration. A few possible examples: the role of spirituality or religion? Your work or relationship non-negotiables? Your ethical red line in the sand?

If you might find a model helpful, I offer my philosophy of life here.

Most people don’t follow their personal philosophy assiduously, but developing one can create guideposts that can help you live the life you want to live.

I read this aloud on YouTube.

Marty Nemko, Ph.D ., is a career and personal coach based in Oakland, California, and the author of 10 books.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Open a textbook in biology and you’ll find a purported definition of life, usually in the form of a list of characteristics that apply to organisms, their parts, their interactions, or their history. Often these definitions will be nothing more than descriptions or rely on more controversial theoretical commitments.

Like many basic concepts, it is difficult to non-controversially define life. Most people simply avoid the issue by ignoring marginal cases, accepting the vagueness of the boundary cases, or setting aside the whole issue as beyond their scope. Nonetheless, there are many people whose work seems to require a rigorous demarcation of life, especially in new scientific contexts, such as astrobiology, origins of life, or synthetic biology. As such, the nature of life continues to be a hotly debated topic.

This article focuses on the subject matter of biology: life. The first half of this article will focus on attempts to characterize life by both philosophers and scientists. The first section will describe alternative accounts of definitions, its two subsections will cover historical and contemporary definitions, and section 2 covers the recent countertrend in skepticism toward definitions of life. Because the various stakeholders have different goals, the second half will focus on those goals. Sections 3, 4, and 5 cover topics that some believe require a definition of life: artificial and synthetic life, the origin(s) of life, and the search for life in the Universe. Section 6 covers entities that are much larger or smaller than organisms, while section 7 covers the role life takes in the context of society, especially with respect to questions raised by new technology.

1.1 Definitions of Life from Antiquity to Darwin

1.2 contemporary definitions of life, 2. definitional skepticism, 3. artificial and synthetic life, 4. origin(s) of life, 5. search for life, 6. the macro and the micro perspectives, 7. ethics, law, and politics, 8. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. definition(s).

Few things in biology have been more extensively discussed than the definition of life. It is frustrating so little progress has been made on the topic in the face of so much research, theory, and debate. There are many reasons for this failure: disagreements about how abstract or specific definitions should be, different commitments as to what ought to be included in a definition, and even disagreement about the nature of definitions themselves. This section covers the nature and role of definitions. Each of these has been used in approaching the question of life.

Historically, when philosophers and scientists define a concept, the aim is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions. These theoretical definitions (also called real , ideal or philosophical definitions) are often impractical or fragile as they can be challenged with a single imagined counterexample. A classic case is the definition of “bachelors” as “unmarried males.” It is trivial to find examples that fit this definition without intuitively being bachelors: male dogs, baby boys, widowers, etc. Similarly, for any definition of life, one can either show living cases that are left out of the definition or non-living cases that are included by it. Life is organized, but so are geological formations. Life processes energy, but so does fire. Life evolves using complex biochemistry, but so do prions. Life is self-sustaining, but parasites are not. Life is at thermodynamic disequilibrium, but so is much else. As we’ll see shortly, perhaps theoretical definitions are too rigid a standard. The real world is far too complex for limited criteria to decide every marginal case.

Non-philosophers are typically quite frustrated by the back-and-forth that results from theoretical definitions. To that end, some favor operational (or working ) definitions, ones that work in practice to narrow down the range of phenomena under consideration. This approach is often not considered a kind of definition by philosophers (see Gupta 2021). Operational definitions tend to be philosophically shallow. For example, NASA’s operational definition of life as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution” (Joyce 1994) might include viruses while excluding mules. The lack of depth of an operational definition can frustrate theoretically minded people, including other scientists.

There are several other conceptions of definition, as well. The nominal (also lexicographer or dictionary ) definition is determined by analyzing usage. It will not work for cutting edge or controversial issues because such definitions follow the slow process of cultural acceptance rather than provide guidance to researchers at the forefront of these debates. Scholars are more likely to quote a dictionary definition than be illuminated by one.

There are also demonstrative or ostensive definitions, which are concepts we can convey by mere shared observations: “that is red” while pointing at a red object, for instance. Potter Stewart famously defined pornography in this manner by saying “I know it when I see it” (Stewart 1964). Knowledge by ostension may reflect epistemic access to a natural kind, although this may feel indistinguishable from an internalized cultural category. There is huge variation among what scientists consider ‘life,’ even among objects on Earth, like viruses and prions, which suggests this kind of definition is not viable for this target.

Then there are stipulative definitions, which are terms introduced and defined by fiat. A circle in Euclidean geometry can be defined as a round plane figure whose boundary consists of infinite points equidistant to a single other point. There are no possible counterexamples to this definition, given the axioms of Euclidean geometry. This approach provides little refuge in the real world. Consider an attempt to define swans as “white birds with long necks.” By stipulation, storks, great egrets, and many cranes would be swans, while Australia’s black swans would not. Such a quick and dirty definition seems to define the category out of hand and perhaps only works within accepted axioms or theories. Life could be stipulated as “carbon-based reproducing entities,” which would rule out silicon-based life by fiat. Such a definition merely pushes the debate to the scenarios in which the stipulated definition goes against intuitive notions.

The 20th century saw some steps away from definitions toward alternative views of concepts, notably prototypes , exemplars , and theories (Machery 2009). Prototype concepts are abstract features shared by most, but not all members of a category (Rosch & Mervis 1975; Rosch 1978; Hampton 1979, 2006; Smith 2002). The definitions of life in biology textbooks might be charitably understood as prototype concepts. So, too, are the property cluster natural kinds popular in philosophy of biology (Boyd 1991, 1999, 2010; Diguez 2013; Slater 2015). Exemplars are concepts built around similarity to a particular individual case (Medin & Schaffer 1978, Nosofsky 1986). Both prototypes and exemplar concepts rely on similarity to paradigmatic cases, with the former being an imagined ideal and the latter being a real instance (Komatsu 1992). For similarity-based concepts to work in scientific cases such as life, we need an account of which similarities matter, how much, and why. In contrast to similarity-based concepts, the requirements of theory concepts are somewhat more nebulous. Theory concepts are modeled on scientific theories and thus reflect their diversity (Carey 1985, Murphy & Medin 1985, Gopnik & Meltzoff 1997). At the core, theory concepts rely on explanations for why the members of a category share certain properties. Marginal cases of life, such as viruses, prions, or protocells, might be included in some theories of life but not others.

In sum, there are many potential approaches to definitions, each with different benefits, drawbacks, and standards of success. Much more could be said about these and other possible approaches, but this will suffice for our purposes. Some of the disagreements about defining life dissolve upon clarifying which type of definition or concept is being used. Many of the explicit attempts to define life have focused on either operational and philosophical definitions, while often not acknowledging or misunderstanding the distinction between these. One will note these two definitions are at cross-purposes – operational definitions can be quick and dirty, but philosophical definitions seek to give necessary and sufficient conditions. Less work has been done on life as a non-definitional concept, although that is perhaps changing.

This subsection briefly explores historical definitions of life. There are more in depth treatments of the matter, to which an interested reader should turn (Bedau & Cleland 2010, Riskin 2015, Mix 2018). Approaches to this issue vary widely across historians, philosophers, and scientists, so some skepticism about any individual author’s approach to the topic is warranted.

We begin with the Greeks. In several dialogues, notably the Phaedrus , Timeaus , and Republic , Plato divided life into three parts: vegetable life, animal life, and rational life. All living creatures possessed the first in the form of nutrition and reproduction, animals were additionally capable of sensation and locomotion, and humans also had rational souls. Plato’s subsequent influence in Christian theology may be apparent in spirit if not in detail. In Christian theology, human life was not only rational, but also involved an eternal, spiritual soul and an internal, conscious life.

Plato’s student, Aristotle, had a different notion in which living things had an appropriate form, material, and goal-directedness ( De Anima , 412a1–416b). Aristotle held life to be a form of self-motion, perpetuation, or self-alteration (Byers 2006). For Aristotle, the capacity to resist internal and external perturbations was the essential distinction between living beings and non-living objects. Other features were accidental. This quest for demarcating the essential from the accidental for life has persisted to this day in searches for theoretical definitions of life as well as in attacks against those not interested in such definitions.

Centuries later, Descartes drew a sharper distinction between animal life and rational life than between inanimate objects and animal life. This was a turn away from medieval approaches, which had taken the gap between vegetables and animals to be broader. For Descartes, animals are analogous to complex clocks and lack the inner or spiritual life central to the human experience (Descartes 2010/1664). As such, Descartes’ category of life neither mapped onto Greek conceptions nor current conceptual frameworks. The mechanistic view developed by Descartes and his followers is often thought to be continuous with current scientific thinking, but this is perhaps anachronistic, as much of the theoretical underpinning separating animal life and rational life is no longer accepted.

The responses to Descartes came to be grouped under the heading ‘vitalism.’ Vitalism, which spanned three centuries, was a heterogenous philosophical position unified by adherents’ doubt of a fully mechanistic view of life. Vitalists had ontologies of defining features of life as varied as immaterial causes, particular arrangements of matter, a special life fluid, a particular end goal, or even mental forces. A whiggish history of biology will declare the death of vitalism with Friedrich Wöhler’s synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate. The suggestion is that if biological chemicals can be produced from mere chemistry, then biology is also mere chemistry. Although this was an important step, many chemists already had accepted a mechanistic world view, and many other researchers continued to develop vitalist theories well into the 20th century (Bergson 1959, Driesch 1905/1914).

The 20th century largely saw the mechanist/vitalist divide dissipate. Despite the difficulties described above about definitions, hundreds of scientists, philosophers, and others have tried their hand at defining life. Much of the interest is motivated by new science and new technologies – including artificial life, synthetic biology, origins of life, and astrobiology – which complicate the issue by violating some of the traditional groupings of properties associated with life. There are numerous books, articles, and workshops on the nature of life (Pályi et al. 2002, Popa 2004, Bedau & Cleland 2010).

Table 1. Some recent attempts at meta-categories for life definitions. Each column is one account’s categories, the rows are lined up according to rough similarity.

There are perhaps thousands of competing definitions proposed across hundreds of articles. A true survey of that variety would be beyond the scope of this article and beyond your patience as a reader. Nevertheless, some broad categories have been proposed that might offer some insight into current contending definitions. Table 1 summarizes three of the most rigorous attempts this century to categorize definitions of life.

Each of these authors used different approaches to arrive at their categories. Popa 2004 and Trifonov 2011 attempted to reverse engineer the categories from dozens of definitions collected from many dozens of experts, while Malaterre and Chartier 2019 conducted a more extensive, text-mining approach across 30,000 scientific articles selected from journals that published pieces in biology. As one can see, there are areas of rough overlap, but each categorization scheme has its own unique categories as well.

Most of the definitions considered by these authors straddle some of these distinctions and are often ambiguous as to whether they are intended to be theoretical definitions, operational definitions, or something else. For example, Popa 2004 considers definitions ranging from Oparin 1961’s “Any system capable of replication and mutation is alive” to Schulze-Makuch et al. 2002:

We propose to define living systems as those that are: (1) composed of bounded micro-environments in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surroundings; (2) capable of transforming energy to maintain their low-entropy states; and (3) able to replicate structurally distinct copies of themselves from an instructional code perpetuated indefinitely through time despite the demise of the individual carrier through which it is transmitted.

Categorizing definitions such as these necessarily requires some choices and reasonable people can disagree about whether each belongs in one or more categories.

The takeaway from current understandings of the definition of life is that there is no consensus forthcoming in the near future. One concern is that these are summaries of attempts to define a category for which there is only loose agreement. Many scientists disagree as to the phenomena a definition of life is intended to unify. Some scientists would include prions, viruses, and entities only hypothesized to exist in the origin of life, while others would completely reject them. Some might accept digital organisms as alive, others would deny this approach. Conceptual equivocation could have significant costs for research. One field recently quantified this cost, suggesting it is more than a merely theoretical concern (Trombley and Cottenie 2019). Given the diversity described above, one may be tempted to adopt a definitional pluralism : there are many ways to be alive. For some reason, that approach is not common in the literature.

Nearly everybody agrees there is a distinction between life and non-life, typically understood as a difference in kind rather than one of degree. Furthermore, most people involved accept that life is some sort of natural kind, rather than a human psychological concept. That said, a common theme in recent philosophical work has been to express skepticism of life definitions as a goal. The literature on the definition of life is vast, repetitive, and utterly inconclusive. Philosophers have disagreed as to the ultimate source of the lack of consensus, citing unstated assumptions in either the definer’s approach or the question itself. Note that many scientists are less likely to be skeptical of the goal of defining life, though also more resistant to engaging in the philosophical debate.

One skeptical view has arisen from the observation that theoretical definitions of life presume a theory of life (Cleland and Chyba 2002, Benner 2010, Cleland 2019). Although it is not obvious that the authors allude to the theory-theory of concepts, described in section 1, a common analogy is to early chemical theory. According to this analogy, early alchemists likened the alchemists’ Aqua regia (“royal water”) and Aqua fortis (“strong water”). Development of atomic theory revealed, Cleland argues, that the true nature of water was H 2 O, while the other ‘waters’ were HNO 3 + 3 HCl and HNO 3 , respectively. Cleland advocates avoiding definitions altogether, fearing they will blind us to new instances of life, and instead opts for tentative criteria, which she believes avoid the implicit dogma of even operational definitions.

Other authors have pointed out that the explanandum of life is itself up for debate (Tsokolov 2009, Mix 2020, Parke 2020). According to Emily Parke, some accept life as applying to individuals, whereas other definitions apply to collectives first (including entire planets) and individuals derivatively. Relatedly, most believe life is some kind of entity rather than some kind of relation or process (but see Nicholson and Dupré 2018). Parke also points out that some definitions seek a material basis, perhaps limiting life’s substrate to the biochemistry we know on Earth, while others are functional. Sagan famously worried about biochemical definitions because they were prone to ‘Earth Chauvinism’ for privileging our own biochemistry (1970). Other authors take our biochemistry to be independently justified as universal (Pace 2001, Benner et al. 2004, but see Bains 2004). Finally, Parke distinguishes between those that seek clean boundaries and those that accept the possibility of a continuum of ‘lifelikeness.’

Other authors have advocated a kind of quietism about definitions, maintaining that folk concepts need not match up with scientific ones (Machery 2011), any definitions would not change scientific practice (Szostak 2012), advocated a radical conceptual rethinking (Mariscal & Doolittle 2020), or denied the distinction between life & non-life entirely (Jabr 2013).

This last position of eliminativism could be expanded as it helps illustrate all other life skeptical positions. Cowie 2009 classifies eliminativist goals as either linguistic or ontological. Ontological eliminativists don’t believe the objects they are eliminating truly exist. We’re all eliminativists about something, perhaps ghosts or fairies. Linguistic/conceptual eliminativists, on the other hand are merely suspicious of theoretical terms or concepts, what Ramsey 2020 calls ‘category dissolution’ or ‘conceptual fragmentation.’ In essence, it’s not that there aren’t living things, it’s just that the category life is heterogeneous rather than a natural kind. According to Cowie, one can deny that anything matching our theoretical definition of life actually exists in the world while still accepting it as a useful fiction. Conversely, one may think scientific theories about life are fruitless or that the term is too vague and confused to be useful, without doubting life exists. If we accept any of these alternatives, we should perhaps avoid ever using the term ‘life’ in isolation and instead reference Metabolic Life and Evolutionary Life and all the other conceptions.

At play in these various forms of skepticism are several underlying assumptions. Among other disagreements, researchers disagree about what life is, whether it is a natural kind with an essence or a human construct; they disagree as to the purpose of defining life, especially if it will not change scientific practice; and they disagree as to the features of life that are relevant and the ones that are mere consequences. When researchers hold unstated assumptions such as these, they are liable to mistake the source of their disagreement.

The rest of this article will focus on uses of the various life concepts. Some of the definitions described above are derived from, or necessary for, specific scientific and societal purposes. This section focuses on artificial and synthetic life.

In principle, most contemporary scientists and philosophers believe life can be created, but there is broad disagreement as to what needs to be recreated for something to be life. In functional approaches, mere formal organization sufficiently similar to organisms may be enough. Complexly configured robots (“hardware”) or computer programs (“software”) might qualify. This view is known as Strong Artificial Life (A-Life for short) and has received much of the same pushback as the Strong Artificial Intelligence approach before it (Sober 1991, Boden 1999, Brooks 2001). Those who reject the Strong A-Life view believe that functional approaches miss some of the essential features of biology for either epistemic or ontological reasons. Epistemic objections might be consistent with the possibility of Strong A-Life, but doubt that we have the knowledge to recreate the relevant biological functions in a digital framework. Conversely, most of the objections to Strong A-Life have been ontological, resting on the view that representations cannot be equivalent to that which they represent and that perhaps life requires chemical embodiment, ruling Strong A-Life impossible by fiat.

Weak A-Life approaches, on the other hand, don’t presume the ontological equivalence of structurally similar circuits and cells. Instead, proponents suggest the more modest goal of developing a deeper understanding of life as we know it by exploring the effects of various parameters in simulations, effectively placing life in a broader context of possible biology (Langton 1989, 1995). For example, in the Terra program, software was pitted against other software for processing power (Ray 1993). Unexpected by the researchers at the time, software parasitism evolved: software would co-opt the reproductive processing of other software. Policing mechanisms also evolved, leading to an arms race between free-riders and the software trying to stop them.

Whether one accepts the strong or weak interpretation of A-Life, these in silico approaches are cheaper than equivalent work done in real organisms. They also offer possibilities that are not available in ordinary biology, such as programming alternative parameters to take the place of laws of nature and exploring relationships across deep time and space quickly and efficiently.

Another approach worth highlighting is that of synthetic life (“wetware”). Less conceptually troubled, synthetic life can also address some questions of A-Life, while allowing for a finer grain of realism. Synthetic life approaches have explored creating self-replication (Lincoln & Joyce 2009), minimal genomes (Koonin 2000, Hutchinson et al. 2016), a chemical evolution (Gromski et al. 2020), and other projects. Not all synthetic biology is in the business of investigating life as it could be, as not all computer programming is A-Life. Nevertheless, the tools developed by both can be illuminating. By exploring possibilities, scientists can discover previously hidden relationships, revealing which aspects of life are more or less plausible than expected.

Inextricable from the question of life’s nature is the question of its origin. Ancient and modern thinkers accepted that life often arose spontaneously from non-life. Two centuries of experiments eventually overturned this widely accepted view, culminating in Louis Pasteur’s swan-neck bottle experiments. Since then, the puzzle of Life’s origin has been one of the biggest and most important in all of science.

Darwin was famously silent about the problem, although in a letter to his friend Joseph Hooker, Darwin confided that he imagined life originating in “some warm little pond” (see Other Internet Resources below; and Peretó et al. 2009). Subsequent work on the subject was sparse until the 1920s when Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane independently proposed hypotheses for life’s origin in then plausible early Earth conditions (Haldane 1929; Oparin 2010/1936). As a graduate student in the 1950s, Stanley Miller tested the proposal, discovering dozens of amino acids in the mixture (1953). Since then, the field of origins-of-life studies has expanded dramatically.

Our earliest reliable records of this planet, some 3.5 billion years ago, contain distinctive evidence of microbial fossils, including distinctive shapes that correlate to the sizes and shapes of current prokaryotes, as well as carbon-ratios distinctive to life as we know it (Schopf 1993, Schopf et al. 2017). Many analyses have pushed our confidence in life’s earlier origin significantly further back, suggesting that basically as soon as Earth was not molten, it was filled with life (Pearce et al. 2018, Lineweaver 2020). How life started and why it started so quickly remains one of the most pressing open questions in science.

There are many open philosophical issues in origins of life research. Several of these are centered around the explanandum in question and epistemological limits to our knowledge. Researchers differ, for example, as to whether the purpose of origins-of-life research is to discover how life could have originated or how it did originate (Scharf et al. 2015, Mariscal et al. 2019). Some steps in the process could have been chancy, others could have been deterministic but highly contingent, still others could have been the only way life ever originates anywhere in the Universe.

There are several broad approaches to investigating the origin of life. “Bottom-Up” approaches begin with pre-biotic chemistry and explore how it could withstand stressors in order for lifelike entities to form and evolve. At present, there are many unsolved problems, most notably that most energetically favorable interactions would consume the proto-life forms involved. Scientists have cleverly attempted to ease the problem by relaxing assumptions: perhaps the environment provided our first boundaries (Koonin 2009), or perhaps it provided porto-genetic material (Mathis et al. 2017), all of this could have occurred in a viscous solvent instead of a cell (He et al. 2017), or on a surface (Wächtershäuser 1988), or using a variety of entities that eventually became encapsulated (Eigen & Schuster 1977). Nevertheless, the gulf between the pre-biotic chemistry and the simplest life forms is still huge and any number of explanations only account for a tiny portion of the conceptual distance.

Another approach, “Top-Down,” uses current taxa to infer the nature and timing of the origin of life on Earth. To do so, we take current examples of life on Earth and trace their ancestry, by comparing the nearly hundred shared genes, primarily associated with biological translation (Koonin 2011). All life shares a last universal common ancestor, “LUCA” for short. There may have been several origins of life, but our evidence is insufficient to distinguish this scenario from a single origin. Nevertheless, at least one origin, presumably in Earthly pre-biotic conditions, led to the existence of LUCA, an important constraint upon theorizing about the origin of life. It is widely expected that LUCA was merely one creature in a larger population and existed long after the origin of the first organism. There are also a variety of concerns with respect to LUCA: whether it was simple or complex (Mariscal & Doolittle 2015); whether it had a membrane that resembled any of the current membranes (Koonin 2011); whether the genes it contained were ancestors of our own genes or subsequently acquired (Doolittle & Brown 1994, Woese & Fox 1977; Woese 1998); whether its genome was made of DNA (Forterre 2006a), whether it was a heterotroph or autotroph; where it lived; and when it lived.

The gap between Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches is huge: untold generations passed between pre-biotic chemistry and LUCA. We may never be able to solve Life’s origin, but each step brings us closer to understanding the trajectory.

Even the most pessimistic analyses of the likelihood of life suggests life on Earth is not unique (Frank & Sullivan 2016). Many scientists take that as a good reason to search for life elsewhere in the Universe. The current search for life elsewhere focuses on two extremes: the chemical byproducts of life and the technological signals of intelligent life. The social interactions of alien populations might be interesting, but they are hard to study as of yet. Thus, we search for biosignatures that might uniquely identify life from a great distance. We’ll take each in turn.

Biosignatures, as the name implies, are purported to be markers of life. Chemical biosignatures are compounds either rarely or never produced without the assistance of life on Earth. Finding biosignatures thus implies a material conception of life, likely in the form of biochemistry, metabolism, or thermodynamics. There have been many attempts to detect biosignatures, primarily on Mars. These approaches include experiments done on planetary surfaces, observations from Earth or low-earth orbit, and study of meteors and other debris from nearby planetary bodies.

More practically, satellite or telescope observations of other planets have been used to search for gasses outside of thermodynamic equilibrium. Methane has been sporadically detected on Mars since 2004 (Formisano et al. 2004, Webster et al. 2018) with an accompanying claim of formaldehyde detection (Peplow 2005). Venus has also been a source of attention, with phosphine gas detected in the clouds above Venus (Greaves et al. 2020). A controversial finding, it nevertheless caught the scientific imagination. Future scientific research is expected to accelerate this method of observation, especially with new data gathered by the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). With its equipment, JWST is able to image exoplanets at resolutions allowing the detection of gas biomarkers in the atmospheres of exoplanets (Loeb & Maoz 2013).

By contrast, there have been scarce attempts to detect chemical life while on the surface of another planet. In 1975, NASA sent the Viking landers to Mars, tasked with a variety of scientific experiments including some that were purported to detect life if it was present. One, the Labeled Release Experiment, did, but its results were inconsistent with the other on-board experiments, so the result was deemed inconclusive (Levin & Straat 1976, Ezell & Ezell 1984). The current Perseverence rover on Mars is able to assess certain biosignatures and upcoming missions by NASA, the Chinese National Space Administration, and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency all seek to determine whether Mars has evidence of past or current life.

It is not obvious that life on Mars would be a separate origin than life on Earth, as the two planets exchange tons of rocks each year and it is at least theoretically possible that life could have formed on one planet and been subsequently transferred to the other (McKay 2010). Since Mars is a smaller body than Earth, it coalesced before Earth and thus it is conceivable that life might have formed there first, although this is a relatively marginal view in the astrobiology community. Meteorites from Mars and other planetary bodies have also been the source of purported biosignatures. The Martian meteorite ALH84001 was instrumental in forming the science of astrobiology in 1996, after NASA scientists discovered bacteria-like structures (McKay et al. 1996). Subsequent meteorites have also garnered scientific interest (e.g. White et al. 2014).

The other major attempt to search for life, that of searching for intelligence, more readily captures the imagination. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) has been ongoing for centuries (Dick 1982). Fierce debates between those that took Earth to be unique and those that took it to be one of a plurality of worlds persisted for millennia (and still do, to some extent). Advocates of the plurality of worlds view searched their telescopes for evidence. A famous instance is Percival Lowell’s drawings of Martian canals in the 1890s. Influenced by the mid-1800s observations of what appeared to be channels criss-crossing Mars, Lowell drew a series of canals based on his observations. Science fiction soon picked up the observation and conjectured a dying civilization, hoping to squeeze water out of the last bits of remaining ice in the Martian poles.

Partially driven by the science fiction following Lowell’s drawings, the early 20th century saw increased interest in detecting radio signals from Outer Space. This interest accelerated after the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and was more systematically and formally approached starting in the late 1970s. SETI research has not been publicly funded since 1994, but private and public donors, as well as academic and lay researchers have kept the program going since. There are many technical challenges to the search: space is unimaginably huge, signals are weak, possibilities of interstellar communication are myriad, and our searches can only cover an insignificant portion of the task.

More controversially, many dozens of messages have been sent into Outer Space since 1974. A few have been in the form of physical objects aboard spacecraft, but most have been radio signals aimed at promising stars or star clusters. sometimes called Active SETI or METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Although the practice continues due to its low cost and relative ease, many philosophers, scientists, and policy experts have come out against the practice largely due to the risk of broadcasting our presence to potentially hostile forces on behalf of future generations that cannot consent (Smith 2020).

Scientists grow more concerned about philosophical questions when scientific limitations or conceptual choices are made apparent to them. Those scientists who study deep time, deep space, abstract issues, or questions of ethics are often keenly aware of the philosophical choices that influence their research from identification of research question to interpretation of the data. This section briefly goes through other scientific contexts in which how life is defined is relevant, which address scales well below and well above the organism level.

There are several biological entities for which it is an open question as to whether they are alive. Viruses, for example, are units of genetic material encased in a protein coat. It is unknown whether all viruses share common ancestor (Koonin et al. 2006, Moreira and López Garcia 2009) nor how they originated, be it escaped transposable elements, reduced cells, or some ancestral third option (Forterre 2006b). The status of viruses as living is mired with controversy, with some people holding virons to be alive, others believing them not to be, and a third camp has them as living only in the context of an infected cell, but a mere ‘seed’ otherwise (Forterre 2010).

There are other entities in the “twilight zone of microbiology,” including transposable elements, viroids, unculturable (but putatively existing) microbes, organisms in vegetative states, and prions (Postgate 1999). The problems facing each of these are similar: several of them can evolve by natural selection, are biochemically complex, but lack other properties associated with life. For example, prions are protein products of life that can fold other prions in a way that allows for cumulative evolution (Li et al. 2010). They are rarely included in the category ‘life’ due to their inactivity in most settings and rather simple origin as a misfold of a functional protein.

If there is a twilight zone of microbiology, there is also a twilight zone of ecology. Organisms form populations, species, lineages, clades, and ecosystems. The status of each of these is an open question, but they have many of the same features associated with life as described above. Perhaps the strongest case can be made for eusocial insects, such as some ants, bees, wasps, and termites. In several species, there are rigid distinctions between the castes that reproduce and those that do not, with many of the latter serving the role of caring for the young (Hölldobler & Wilson 2009). One might note that entities above the organism level are as a rule less integrated and connected than the organisms that comprise them. This is perhaps a general feature of life: from the perspective of every item in the biological hierarchy, its parts are much more homogenous than it is. Our cells seem much more integrated and self-contained than our bodies, so, too, are individual insects more self-contained than the colonies to which they belong.

Most controversial has been the case of Gaia. Gaia is a term from Greek mythology; she is a personification of the planet Earth. In 1979, James Lovelock, revived the concept in his book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth . In his view, the Earth-wide set of interlocking ecosystems could be viewed as a single entity. One insight of Lovelock’s was already mentioned in the previous section: planet-wide interactions are the scale that matters in detecting life elsewhere. Lovelock’s book sparked controversy centered around the plausibility of his model of the Earth as a self-regulating homeostatic system. In the view of many at the time, it was an inaccurate description: Earth could not evolve in principle, and the subsequent ontological move of granting Earth the status of life was unmotivated (Doolittle 1981). Recent attempts to revitalize the notion of Gaia on a more theoretic footing involve both abiotic and biotic regulatory mechanisms and natural selection acting at the level of clades (Lenton et al. 2018, Doolittle 2019). Regardless of current attempts at a theoretical justification, the thought of Earth as a living entity motivated many in the environmental movement and the idea remains a common reference.

The term ‘life’ is important outside of biology. Often, the focus is not on the concept of life or life in general, but on the status of individual living entities. Typically, the focus is on the beginning and end stages of individual lives, which raises legal, religious, and moral questions. The start of an individual life has been the source of contraception and abortion discussions (Noonan 1967, Dellapenna 1978). Unfortunately, developmental biology does not provide an uncontroversial starting point for when ‘life’ begins (Maienschein 2014). The end of individual lives was also a heated debate in the 20th century as new technologies were able to keep human bodies alive long after they would have died in nature (DeGrazia 2016).

Any discussion of defining life in these contexts should begin by distinguishing between life and other phenomena that are often conflated with it in public discourse, such as sentience, personhood, and moral considerability. It’s unclear how much ontological, epistemic, or moral weight the category of life has independently of other properties. Attributing moral worth to non-living entities is still a minority position in environmental or comparative philosophy (but see Leopold 1949, Basl 2019). Thus, a starting position might be that life is a prerequisite for moral considerability. Nonetheless, most humans don’t mind killing bacteria for the sake of cleanliness and many people eat or wear the flesh of animals. So, in many discussions, life is only valuable when it is the vehicle for other equally nebulous properties like sentience, personhood, or immaterial souls.

If any living entities have a distinct moral or ontological status, most philosophers would accept that humans are among them (Rolston 1975, Goodpaster 1978). In these contexts, it matters when individual humans come into being and acquire such a status in their own right, be it conception, birth, or some time period in between. Considered opinions differ as to when this occurs and in virtue of what, be it mere possibility of self-sustained life, sentience, or other features. There is still a rampant pro-life/pro-choice split in cultural politics, which is somewhat lessened in European countries (Corbella 2020). There are equivalent, but less tendentious analogues in the contexts of euthanasia, the death penalty, war, and the prevention of death and disease. In these debates, both ethical and metaphysical commitments matter.

The public questions of life are often raised by new technologies. In the abortion discussion above, for example, new techniques to end pregnancies, from birth control to abortion procedures, as well as new medical technologies facilitating premature deliveries made the topic more contentious. Other technological innovations also raise questions about life. One such area is that of transhumanism (c.f. More and Vita-More 2013). Transhumanism is the movement aimed toward the use of technology for the human enhancement of social, psychological, and physical lives. These can range from prosthetics to implants or from pharmaceuticals to mental ‘uploading.’ There are bioconservatives, who argue against transhumanism for practical, moral, or aesthetic reasons. There are also posthumanists, who look forward to a world in which humans are replaced or eliminated by subsequent artificial intelligence. The debate over whether such posthumans might be ‘alive’ is similar in structure to the artificial life discussion in section 3. Bioconservatives also argue against this view. Among the topics in these debates are whether a particular technology counts as therapy or enhancement, whether the risks of alteration outweigh the benefits, whether certain goals of transhumanism are even possible, and which alterations will affect the moral or ontological status of the people that receive them.

That life is a source of ethical, legal, and political controversy is to be expected. And although it is beyond the scope of this article to adjudicate these debates, advocates ought to be aware of the deep vagueness in biology and disagreement within philosophy with respect to what life is, what an individual living organism is, when individual lives begin or end, and what features of life ground moral considerability.

Although the conceptual terrain of life concepts is well covered, there is no accepted view as yet. This is unlikely to change given the disciplinary backgrounds, explanatory values, and theoretical commitments of the stakeholders involved. A wide range of practices rely on competing conceptions of life: including artificial life, origins-of-life research, the search for life, and other projects described above.

Future scientific discoveries or inventions may break this impasse, as they have in other cases of theoretical gridlock. The development of atomic theory, discussed in section 2, created new categorical divisions that scientists accepted as more real than the categories of the ancients or alchemists. With this conceptual fragmentation, old categories were discarded and new ones accepted. One can imagine something similar happening in the case of life: many discoveries might show a clear cluster of how complex, lifelike entities can form from prebiotic chemistry, eventually winning over the majority of the scientific and philosophical community (e.g. Weber 2007, 2010).

Conversely, a simple decision might be made based on shared values or explanatory goals. The example of death may be illustrative. After decades of debate, a new decision, not a discovery, was made. Physicians concluded the irreversibility of death was the most important property for their purposes. They adopted the concept of whole-brain death as their operational criterion (DeGrazia 2016). The facts on the ground did not change, but the shared understanding did.

Finally, perhaps life will be accepted as a polysemous concept with each definitional cluster applying to a subset of the whole: biochemical life, evolutionary life, metabolic life, etc. Researchers may rely on context, accept some miscommunication, or simply stipulate the kind of life they mean. The example of planets, discussed in Brusse 2016 may help make this point. There was always a huge diversity within the category planet, which included the Sun and Moon until the Renaissance. In the early 1800s, asteroids were discovered. Initially, they were considered planets, they were demoted to ‘minor’ planets a few decades later, then simply ‘asteroids’ after the 1950s. Pluto was discovered in 1930, recognized as the smallest planet by the 1970s. From 1992 until 2006, many objects similar to Pluto were discovered until astronomers decided that the term planet actually covered at least two distinct, but scientifically interesting categories: typical planets and dwarf planets. Similarly, perhaps some of the categories described in section 1.2 will form the basis of accepted sub-categories of life.

It is still an open question as to how long the current situation will persist before a discovery forces a scientific reckoning or a decision obviates the need. For now, the debate continues.

• Aristotle, De Anima (selections), in M.A. Bedau & C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 9–14.
• Bains, William, 2004, “Many chemistries could be used to build living systems,” Astrobiology , 4(2): 137–167.
• Basl, John, 2019, The Death of the Ethic of Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bedau, Mark A., and Carol E. Cleland (eds.), 2010, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Benner, Steven Albert, 2010, “Defining life,” Astrobiology , 10(10): 1021–1030. doi:10.1089/ast.2010.0524
• Bergson, Henri, 1907 [1959], L’évolution créatrice , Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
• Boden, Margaret Ann, 1999, “Is metabolism necessary?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 50(2): 231–248. doi: 10.1093/bjps/50.2.231
• Boyd, Richard, 1991, “Realism, Anti-Foundationalism and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds,” Philosophical Studies , 61(1–2): 127–148.
• –––, 1999, “Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa,” in R. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 141–185.
• –––, 2010, “Homeostasis, Higher Taxa, and Monophyly,” Philosophy of Science , 77(5): 686–701.
• Brooks, Rodney, 2001, “The relationship between matter and life,” Nature , 409(6818): 409–411 [ Brooks 2001 available online ].
• Brusse, Carl, 2016, “Planets, pluralism, and conceptual lineage,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 53: 93–106.
• Byers, Sarah, 2006, “Life as ‘Self-Motion’: Descartes and ‘the Aristotelians’ on the Soul as the Life of the Body,” The Review of Metaphysics , 59(3): 723–755.
• Carey, Susan E., 1985, Conceptual Change in Childhood , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• –––, 1988, “Conceptual differences between children and adults,” Mind & Language , 3: 167–181.
• Cleland, Carol E., 2019, The Quest for a Universal Theory of Life: Searching for Life as we Don’t Know It (Vol. 11), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cleland, Carol E. and Christopher F. Chyba, 2002, “Defining ‘life,’” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere , 32(40): 387–393.
• Corbella, Mercedes, 2020, “Globally, seven in ten adults favor allowing abortion,” IPSOS, published online 17 August 2020 [ Corbella 2020 available online ].
• Cowie, Fiona, 2009, “Why isn’t Stich an Eliminativist?” in D. Murphy and M. Bishop (eds.), Stich: And his Critics , Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 74–100.
• DeGrazia, David, “The Definition of Death,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/death-definition/ >.
• Dellapenna, Joseph W., 1978, “The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law.” University of Pittsburgh Law Review , 40: 359–428.
• Descartes, René, 1664 [2010], “Treatise on Man,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland (eds.), The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–20; original translation by J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, and D. Murdoch, The Philosophical Writings of Descartes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; original work published in 1664.
• Dick, Steven J., 1982, Plurality of Worlds: The Origins of the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Diguez, Antonio, 2013, “Life as a homeostatic property cluster,” Biological Theory , 7(2): 180–186.
• Doolittle, W. Ford, 1981, “Is Nature Really Motherly?” CoEvolution Quarterly , 29: 58–63.
• –––, 2019, “Making evolutionary sense of Gaia,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 34(10): 889–894.
• Doolittle, W. Ford and James R. Brown, 1994, “Tempo, Mode, the Progenote, and the Universal Root,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 91(15): 6721–6728.
• Driesch, Hans, 1905 [1914], The History & Theory of Vitalism , C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.
• Eigen, Manfred and Peter Schuster, 1977, “A Principle of Natural Self-Organization,” Naturwissenschaften , 63(11): 541–565.
• Ezell, Edward Clinton and Linda Neuman Ezell, 1984, On Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet, 1958–1978 (NASA History Series: Volume 4212), Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
• Formisano, Vittorio, Sushil Atreya, Thérèse Encrenaz, Nikolai Ignatiev, and Marco Giuranna, 2004, “Detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars,” Science , 306(5702): 1758–1761.
• Forterre, Patrick, 2006a, “Three RNA cells for ribosomal lineages and three DNA viruses to replicate their genomes: a hypothesis for the origin of cellular domain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(10): 3669–3674.
• –––, 2006b, “The origin of viruses and their possible roles in major evolutionary transitions,” Virus Research , 117(1): 5–16.
• –––, 2010, “Defining Life: the Virus Viewpoint,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40(2): 151–160.
• Frank, Adam and Woody T. Sullivan III, 2016, “A new empirical constraint on the prevalence of technological species in the universe,” Astrobiology , 16(5): 359–362.
• Goodpaster, Kenneth E., 1978, “On being morally considerable,” The Journal of Philosophy , 75(6): 308–325.
• Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff, 1997, Words, Thoughts, and Theories , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Greaves, Jane S., Anita M.S. Richards, William Bains, Paul B. Rimmer, Hideo Sagawa, David L. Clements, Sara Seager, Janusz J. Petkowski, Clara Sousa-Silva, Sukrit Ranjan, Emily Drabek-Maunder, Helend J. Fraser, Annabel Cartwright, Ingo Muller-Wodarg, Zhuchang Zhan, Per Frieberg, Iain Coulson, E’lisa Lee, and Jim Hoge, 2020, “Phosphine gas in the cloud decks of Venus,” Nature Astronomy , 5: 655–664.
• Gromski, Piotr S., Granda, Jaroslaw M. and Cronin, Leroy, 2020, “Universal chemical synthesis and discovery with ‘the chemputer,’” Trends in Chemistry , 2(1): 4–12.
• Gupta, Anil, “Definitions,”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/definitions/ >.
• Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson, 1929, “The Origin of Life,” Rationalist Annual , 148: 3–10.
• Hampton, James A., 1979, “Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 18: 441–461.
• –––, 2006, “Concepts as prototypes,” in B.H. Ross (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (Volume 46), New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–113.
• He, Christine, Isaac Gállego, Brandon Laughlin, Martha A. Grover, and Nicholas V. Hud, 2017, “A Viscous Solvent Enables Information Transfer from Gene-Length Nucleic Acids in a Model Prebiotic Replication Cycle,” Nature Chemistry , 9(4): 318–324.
• Hölldobler, Bert and Wilson, Edward O., 2009, The Superorganism: the Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies , New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
• Hutchison, Clyde A., Ray-Yuan Chuang, Vladimir N. Noskov, Nacyra Assad-Garcia, Thomas J. Deerinck, Mark H. Ellisman, John Gill, Krishna Kannan, Bogumil J. Karas, Li Ma, James F. Pelletier, Zhi-Qing Qi, R. Alexander Richter, Elizabeth A. Strychalski, Lijie Sun, Yo Suzuki, Billyana Tsvetanova, Kim S. Wise, Hamilton O. Smith, John I. Glass, Chuck Merryman, Daniel G. Gibson, J. Craig Venter, 2016, “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome,” Science , 351(6280). doi:10.1126/science.aad6253
• Jabr, Ferris, 2013, “Why Life Does Not Really Exist,” Scientific American , published 02 December 2013 [ Jabr 2013 available online ].
• Joyce, Gerard F., 1994, forward, in D. W. Deamer, G. R. Fleischaker (eds.), Origins of Life: the Central Concepts , Boston: Jones & Bartlett, pp. xi–xii.
• Komatsu, Lloyd K., 1992, “Recent Views of Conceptual Structure,” Psychological Bulletin , 112: 500–526.
• Koonin, Eugene V., 2000, “How Many Genes can Make a Cell: the Minimal-Gene-Set Concept,” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics , 1(1): 99–116.
• –––, 2009, “On the Origin of Cells and Viruses: Primordial Virus World Scenario,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 1178(1): 47–64.
• –––, 2011, The Logic of Chance: the Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution , New Jersey: FT press.
• Koonin, Eugene V., Tatiana G. Senkevich, and Valerian V. Dolja, 2006, “The Ancient Virus World and Evolution of cells,” Biology Direct , 1(1): 1–27.
• Langton, Christopher G., 1989, “Artificial life,” in C.G. Langton (ed.), Artificial life (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume IV), Redwood City, Calif.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–47.
• –––, 1995, Artificial Life: An Overview , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Lenton, Timothy M., Stuart J. Daines, James G. Dyke, Arwen E. Nicholson, David M. Wilkinson, and Hywel T.P. Williams, 2018, “Selection for Gaia Across Multiple Scales,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 33(8): 633–645.
• Leopold, Aldo, 1949, A Sand County Almanac , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Levin, Gilbert V. and Patricia Ann Straat, 1976, “Viking labeled release biology experiment: interim results,” Science , 194(4271): 1322–1329.
• Li, Jiali, Shawn Browning, Sukhvir P. Mahal, Anja M. Oelschlegel, and Charles Weissmann, 2010, “Darwinian evolution of prions in cell culture,” Science , 327(5967): 869–872.
• Lincoln, Tracey A. and Joyce, Gerald F., 2009, “Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme,” Science , 323(5918): 1229–1232.
• Lineweaver, Charley H., 2020, “What Do the DPANN Archaea and the CPR Bacteria Tell Us about the Last Universal Common Ancestors?” in J. Seckbach and H. Stan-Lotter (eds.), Extremophiles as Astrobiological Models , London: Wiley, pp.359–367.
• Loeb, Abraham and Dan Maoz, 2013, “Detecting Biomarkers in Habitable-Zone Earths Transiting White Dwarfs,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters , 432(1): L11–L15.
• Lovelock, James E., 2000, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Machery, Edouard, 2009, Doing without Concepts , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Why I Stopped Worrying About the Definition of Life… and Why you Should as Well,” Synthese , 185(1): 145–164. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-9880-1
• Maienschein, Jane, 2014, Embryos Under the Microscope , Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Malaterre, Christophe and Jean-François Chartier, 2019, “Beyond Categorical Definitions of Life: a Data-Driven Approach to Assessing Lifeness,” Synthese , 198: 4543–4572.
• Mariscal, Carlos, Ana Barahona, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Umur Aydinoglu, Stuart Bartlett, María Luz Cárdenas, Kuhan Chandru, Carol E. Cleland, Benjamin T. Cocanougher, Nathaniel Comfort, and Athel Cornish-Bowden, 2019, “Hidden concepts in the history and philosophy of origins-of-life studies: A workshop report,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 49(3): 111–145.
• Mariscal, Carlos and W. Ford Doolittle, 2015, “Eukaryotes first: how could that be?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences), 370(1678): 20140322.
• –––, 2020, “Life and Life Only: a Radical Alternative to Life Definitionism,” Synthese , 197(7): 2975–2989.
• Mathis, Cole, Tanmoy Bhattacharya, and Sara Imari Walker, 2017, “The Emergence of Life as a First-Order Phase Transition,” Astrobiology , 17(3): 266–276.
• McKay, David S., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Hojatollah Vali, Christopher S. Romanek, Simon J. Clemett, Xavier D.F. Chillier, Claude R. Maechling, and Richard N. Zare, 1996, “Search for past life on Mars: possible relic biogenic activity in Martian meteorite ALH84001,” Science , 273(5277): 924–930.
• Medin, Douglas L. and Marguerite M. Schaffer, 1978, “Context Theory of Classification Learning,” Psychological Review , 85(3): 207–238.
• Miller, Stanley L., 1953, “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Science , 117(3046): 528–529.
• Mix, Lucas John, 2018, Life Concepts from Aristotle to Darwin: On Vegetable Souls , New York: Springer.
• –––, 2020, “Three Lives and Astrobiology,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.) Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–78.
• More, Max and Natasha Vita-More, (eds.), 2013, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future , London: John Wiley & Sons.
• Moreira, David and Purificación López-García, 2009, “Ten reasons to exclude viruses from the tree of life,” Nature Reviews Microbiology , 7(4): 306–311.
• Murphy, Gregory L., and Douglas L. Medin, 1985, “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence,” Psychological Review , 92(3): 289–316.
• Nicholson, Daniel J. and Dupré, John, 2018, Everything Flows: Towards a Processual Philosophy of Biology , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Noonan John T. Jr., 1967, “Abortion and the Catholic Church: A Summary History,” National Law Forum , 12: 85–131.
• Nosofsky, Robert M., 1986, “Attention, similarity, and the identification categorization relationship,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition , 115(1): 39–57.
• Oparin, Aleksandr Ivanovich, 1961, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development , New York: Academic Press.
• –––, 1936 [2010], “The Nature of Life,” in M.A. Bedau and C.E. Cleland, The Nature of Life: Classical and Contemporary Perspectives from Philosophy and Science , New York: Cambridge University Press; this translation by Ann Synge was first published in A. I. Oparin, Life: Its nature, origin, and development , New York: Academic Press, 1964, pp. 1–37.
• Pace, Norman R., 2001, “The Universal Nature of Biochemistry,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 98(3): 805–808.
• Pályi, Gyula, Claudia Zucchi, and Luciano Caglioti, (eds.), 2002, Fundamentals of Life , Paris: Elsevier.
• Parke, Emily C., 2020, “Dimensions of Life Definitions,” in K.C. Smith & C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 79–90.
• Pearce, Ben K.D., Andrew S. Tupper, Ralph E. Pudritz, and Paul G. Higgs, 2018, “Constraining the time interval for the origin of life on Earth,” Astrobiology , 18(3): 343–364.
• Peplow, Mark, 2005, “Formaldehyde claim inflames Martian debate,” Nature , published online 25 February 2005. doi:10.1038/news050221-15
• Peretó, Juli, Jeffrey L. Bada, and Antonio Lazcano, 2009, “Charles Darwin and the origin of life,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 39(5): 395–406.
• Plato, Phaedrus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• –––, The Republic , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• –––, Timeaus , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• Popa, Radu, 2004, Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life , New York: Springer.
• Postgate, John, 2000, “The Twilight Zones of Microbiology,” Microbiology Today , 27: 162–163.
• Ramsey, William, “Eliminative Materialism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/materialism-eliminative/ >.
• Ray, Thomas S., 1993, “An evolutionary approach to synthetic biology: Zen and the art of creating life,” Artificial Life , 1(1/2): 179–209.
• Rolston III, H., 2017, “Is there an Ecological Ethic?” in M. Wachs (ed.), Ethics in Planning , London: Routledge, pp. 299–317.
• Rosch, Eleanor, and Mervis, C. B., 1975, “Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories,” Cognitive Psychology , 7: 573–605.
• Rosch, Eleanor, 1978, “Principles of Categorization,” in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization , Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.
• Riskin, Jessica, 2016, The Restless Clock: A History of the Centuries-Long Argument Over what Makes Living Things Tick , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Sagan, Carl, 1970, “Life,” Encyclopedia Britannica , Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica Incorporated, pp. 1083–1083A.
• Scharf, Caleb, Nathaniel Virgo, H. James Cleaves III, Masashi Aono, Nathanael Aubert-Kato, Arsev Aydinoglu, Ana Barahona, Laura M. Barge, Steven A. Benner, Martin Biehl, Ramon Brasser, Christopher J. Butch, Kuhan Chandru, Leroy Cronin, Sabastian Danielache, Jakob Fischer, John Hernlund, Piet Hut, Takashi Ikegami, Jun Kimura, Kensei Kobayashi, Carlos Mariscal, Shawn McGlynn, Brice Menard, Norman Packard, Robert Pascal, Juli Pereto, Sudha Rajamani, Lana Sinapayen, Eric Smith, Christopher Switzer, Ken Takai, Feng Tian, Yuichiro Ueno, Mary Voytek, Olaf Witkowski, and Hikaru Yabuta, 2015, “A Strategy for Origins of Life Research,” Astrobiology , 15(12): 1031–1042.
• Schopf, J. William, 1993, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex chert: new evidence of the antiquity of life,” Science , 260(5108): 640–646.
• Schopf, J. William, Kouki Kitajima, Michael J. Spicuzza, Anatoliy B. Kudryavtsev, and John W. Valley, 2018, “SIMS analyses of the oldest known assemblage of microfossils document their taxon-correlated carbon isotope compositions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(1): 53–58.
• Schulze-Makuch, Dirk, Huade Guan, Louis N. Irwin, E Vega, 2002, “Redefining life: An ecological, thermodynamic, and bioinformatic approach,” in G. Pályi, C. Zucchi, L. Caglioti (eds.), Fundamentals of Life , New York: Elsevier, pp. 169–179.
• Slater, Matthew H., 2015, “Natural Kindness,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66(2): 375–411.
• Smith, J. David, 2002, “Exemplar Theory’s Predicted Typicality Gradient can be Tested and Disconfirmed,” Psychological Science , 13(5): 437–442.
• Smith, Kelly C., 2020, “METI or REGRETTI,” in K.C. Smith and C. Mariscal (eds.), Social and Conceptual Issues in Astrobiology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 209–235.
• Sober, Elliott, 1991, “Learning from Functionalism: prospects for strong artificial life,” in C.G. Langton, C. Taylor, J.D. Farmer, and S. Rasmussen (eds.), Artificial life II (Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity: Proceedings Volume X), Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 749–765.
• Stewart, Potter, 1964, “Jacobellis vs. Ohio,” 378 U.S. 184, 197.
• Szostak, Jack W., 2012, “Attempts to Define Life Do Not Help to Understand the Origin of Life.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics , 29(4): 599–600. doi: 10.1080/073911012010524998
• Trifonov, Edward N., 2011, “Vocabulary of definitions of life suggests a definition.” Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics , 29(2): 259–266
• Trombley, Carolyn A. and Karl Cottenie, 2019, “Quantifying the scientific cost of ambiguous terminology in community ecology,” Philosophical Topics , 47(1): 203–218.
• Tsokolov, Serhiy A., 2009, “Why Is the Definition of Life So Elusive? Epistemological Considerations,” Astrobiology , 9(4): 401–412. doi:10.1089/ast.2007.0201
• Wächtershäuser, Günter, 1988, “Before Enzymes and templates: Theory of Surface Metabolism,” Microbiological Reviews , 52(4): 452–484.
• Weber, Bruce H., 2007, “Emergence of life,” Zygon , 42: 837–856.
• –––, 2010, “What is Life? Defining Life in the Context of Emergent Complexity,” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres , 40: 221–229.
• Webster, Christopher R., Paul R. Mahaffy, Sushil K. Atreya, John E. Moores, Gregory J. Flesch, Charles Malespin, Christopher P. McKay, German Martinez, G., Christina L. Smith, Javier Martin-Torres, Javier Gomez-Elvira, Maria-Paz Zorzano, Michael H. Wong, Melissa G. Trainer, Andrew Steele, Doug Archer Jr., Brad Sutter, Patrice J. Coll, Caroline Freissinet, Pierre-Yves Meslin, Raina V. Gough, Christopher H. House, Alexander Pavlov, Jennifer L. Eigenbrode, Daniel P. Glavin, John C. Pearson, Didier Keymeulen, Lance E. Christensen, Susanne P. Schwenzer, Rafael Navarro-Gonzalez, Jorge Pla-García, Scot C.R. Rafkin, Álvaro Vicente-Retortillo, Henrik Kahanpää, Daniel Viudez-Moreiras, Michael D. Smith, Ari-Matti Harri, Maria Genzer, Donald M. Hassler, Mark Lemmon, Joy Crisp, Stanley P. Sander, Richard W. Zurek, Ashwin R. Vasavada, 2018, “Background Levels of Methane in Mars’ Atmosphere Show Strong Seasonal Variations,” Science , 360(6393): 1093–1096.
• White, Lauren M., Everett K. Gibson, Kathie L. Thomas-Keprta, Simon J. Clemett, and David S. McKay, 2014, “Putative Indigenous Carbon-Bearing Alteration Features in Martian Meteorite Yamato 000593,” Astrobiology , 14(2): 170–181.
• Woese, Carl R. and George E. Fox, 1977, “The Concept of Cellular Evolution,” Journal of Molecular Evolution , 10(1): 1–6.
• Woese, Carl R., 1998, “The Universal Ancestor,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 95(12): 6854–6859.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Weber, Bruce, “Life”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/life/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]
• Darwin, C., Letter to J. D. Hooker, 01 February 1871 , Letter no. 7471, Darwin Correspondence Project.

-->abortion, ethics of --> | death | death: definition of | definitions | -->end of life, aging and --> | life: meaning of

Copyright © 2021 by Carlos Mariscal < carlos @ unr . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home / Essay Samples / Philosophy / Personal Philosophy / My Personal Philosophy of Life

My Personal Philosophy of Life

• Category: Philosophy
• Topic: Meaning of Life , Personal Philosophy

Pages: 1 (442 words)

• Downloads: -->

Embracing Growth and Learning

Fostering meaningful connections, embracing purpose and contribution.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Future Essays

Utilitarianism Essays

Philosophy of Education Essays

Ethos Essays

Virtue Ethics Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->